[tei-council] how about this one?

[Conal Tuohy]

On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 10:06 +0100, Arianna Ciula wrote:
> I am convinced and thanks-you for the explanation. Does this also mean 
> that is better to have the @box attribute for <surface>?
> 
> According to the example of images you had originally marked at 
> http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/trac/TEIP5/attachment/ticket/291/fax-example.jpg, 
> assuming we are now adopting the new draft I would think that:
> 
> - what is marked there as surface is still surface, correct?
> - what is marked there as graphic remains a <graphic> but within a 
> <zone> (the outer zone)
> - the zone elements remains such but will contain <graphic>s

Yes, I think so.

> If the @box attributes alone can allow us to determine which zone is 
> inner and which is outer without the need to complicate things with 
> nesting, do we still need @box for <surface>?

I don't think @box is needed for <surface> - at least, it isn't needed
merely to align textual transcriptions with facsimile images.

On the other hand, a surface/@box attribute WOULD allow you to model the
area of the physical page itself, though as you point out below, that
could itself be ambiguous...

> Sometimes the actual page of a codex doesn't correspond at all with the 
> what was original size of the page because of cropping, damage, invasive 
> restoration etc. and can be often reconstructed using old rules of 
> proportion between the extant textual mirror and the original width of 
> the margins. I can see a possible confusion here. Would my @box for 
> <surface> encode the coordinates of the current page based on the images 
> I have or the supposed size?

I would guess it would encode the size of the physical page you
transcribed. But I really don't know. If you wanted to encode the area
of the original surface (now lost to invasive restoration), you could
define a <zone> in that <surface> to represent the estimated area of the
original.

> I am not trying to be pedantic here, but just to understand the rational 
> behind the proposed markup.

I think it's an interesting question.

Con