[tei-council] Re: q 'n quote

[Lou]

Christian Wittern wrote:
> Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at COMPUTING-SERVICES.OXFORD.AC.UK> writes:
>
>   
>> Thanks, Julia, for the robust defence of the distinction between <q>
>> and <quote>. Clearly, the two *are* regarded as distinct by many for
>> whom the fact of attribution to some agency "external to the text" is
>> sufficient and non-problematic, and that's why the Guidelines retain
>> the two elements. The question before us is whether or not both are
>> needed within TEI Lite. Alternatively, to appease those for whom the
>> distinction *is* problematic,  should we rather make it possible for
>> <q> to appear wherever <quote> is permitted, specifically within
>> <cit>.
>>     
>
> That would make the whole exercise even more problematic.  If TEI Lite
> bothers to include <cit> (which it should), than it also needs
> <quote>.  Trying to get away with <q> is cheating, will confuse
> half of your audience and scare away the other half.
>
> Christian 
>
>   

I'm not sure on what grounds you think this will scare people away, but 
as for "confusion", that horse is already out of the stable, since up 
till P4 the Guidelines have always permitted q wherever quote is 
permitted.  In the current P5 we've removed that possibility by 
distinguishing the two classes, thus making invalid a seriously large 
quantity of legacy material. I don't mind doing that (as you know) if 
the cause is a just one, and the present discussion is my attempt to 
ensure that this really is a well-founded and useful distinction.

I anticipate a similar discussion when we get to talking about whether 
or not <pb> means "page begin" or "page boundary" or "page break",  by 
the way!