[tei-council] FW: Further update on PH

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Wed Sep 19 19:08:27 EDT 2007


Conal Tuohy wrote:
>  It seems to me that if we have no explicit surface specified, or no zone, then we should interpret this to mean that the precise location of the image or images with respect to the page is not defined, and they should be intepreted identically to graphics which had been nested inside surface and zone elements without @box attributes. Does that seem right right?
>   
yes, I think so. I rather like the idea of unspecified <zone> with no @box
(or the 4 broken-apart atts which I prefer), which I could use to say "yes,
I have pictures of two parts of the page, god knows what the exact
zones are, but who cares they are just illustrative"

one thing which bothers me still, which Lou and I spent a while
on today without reaching consensus, is how to document
<zone> and <surface>. eg, how do I say

 - this zone is a closeup of the  messy changes in the margin
 - this <graphic> is colour, this <graphic> is infrared (both are of
   same zone and surface)
 - this <graphic>/ <zone> was taken in 1920, this other pair
   was taken in 1960 after the fire
 - this picture is an oblique shot of the surface

do others recognise any of these scenarios? Lou and I imagined
how we would do the 1920/1960 one by using standoff links to
<bibl> records, but the others?

at the least, I'd be happier if <surface> and <zone> had
<desc> children or the like.

Sebastian


More information about the tei-council mailing list