Difference between revisions of "Ps-discussion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Joachim Veit (talk | contribs) (New page: == Some points to discuss: == * One of the proposals was to use <code><div type="ps"></code> because <code><ps></code> allows no <code><p></code> inside. : We found the ...) |
Joachim Veit (talk | contribs) (→Some points to discuss:) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Some points to discuss: == | == Some points to discuss: == | ||
| − | * One of the proposals was to use <code><div type="ps"></code> because <code>< | + | * One of the proposals was to use <code><div type="ps"></code> because the content of <code><postscript></code> is too restricted. |
: We found the following notice in Edward Vanhoutte's and Ron Van den Branden's 2004 Toronto contribution ''Describing, Transcribing, Encoding, and Editing Modern Correspondence Material: A Textbase Approach'', in: ''Computing the Edition'' 23/4 (forthcoming): | : We found the following notice in Edward Vanhoutte's and Ron Van den Branden's 2004 Toronto contribution ''Describing, Transcribing, Encoding, and Editing Modern Correspondence Material: A Textbase Approach'', in: ''Computing the Edition'' 23/4 (forthcoming): | ||
:: "For example, straightforward as it may seem, encoding a postscript as <code><div type="ps"></code> would force an uncomfortable view of the textual status of the letter. Since a <code><div></code> element, as the TEI Guidelines document, is meant to indicate a subdivision of a text, this would not fit a postscript very well. There is no reason to consider a postscript more a subdivision than a paragraph, with its own <code><p></code> tag, or a salutation formula, with its <code><salute></code> tag. Even is such an ontological-theoretical objection would be accepted in a model for letter encoding, it still leaves the markup-theoretical fact that in this case, a TEI <code><div></code> element would be used for something other than a real subdivision.“ | :: "For example, straightforward as it may seem, encoding a postscript as <code><div type="ps"></code> would force an uncomfortable view of the textual status of the letter. Since a <code><div></code> element, as the TEI Guidelines document, is meant to indicate a subdivision of a text, this would not fit a postscript very well. There is no reason to consider a postscript more a subdivision than a paragraph, with its own <code><p></code> tag, or a salutation formula, with its <code><salute></code> tag. Even is such an ontological-theoretical objection would be accepted in a model for letter encoding, it still leaves the markup-theoretical fact that in this case, a TEI <code><div></code> element would be used for something other than a real subdivision.“ | ||
Revision as of 10:53, 26 February 2009
Some points to discuss:
- One of the proposals was to use
<div type="ps">because the content of<postscript>is too restricted.
- We found the following notice in Edward Vanhoutte's and Ron Van den Branden's 2004 Toronto contribution Describing, Transcribing, Encoding, and Editing Modern Correspondence Material: A Textbase Approach, in: Computing the Edition 23/4 (forthcoming):
- "For example, straightforward as it may seem, encoding a postscript as
<div type="ps">would force an uncomfortable view of the textual status of the letter. Since a<div>element, as the TEI Guidelines document, is meant to indicate a subdivision of a text, this would not fit a postscript very well. There is no reason to consider a postscript more a subdivision than a paragraph, with its own<p>tag, or a salutation formula, with its<salute>tag. Even is such an ontological-theoretical objection would be accepted in a model for letter encoding, it still leaves the markup-theoretical fact that in this case, a TEI<div>element would be used for something other than a real subdivision.“
- "For example, straightforward as it may seem, encoding a postscript as
