[tei-council] comments on "Representation of Primary Sources"

Lou Burnard lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Sun Oct 28 06:41:28 EST 2007


Christian Wittern wrote:
> The second example introducing <zone> has a <zone> element
>
> <zone
>     ulx="0"
>     uly="0"
>     lrx="500"
>     lry="321">
>    <graphic
>
> url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Handschrift.karlsruhe.blb.jpg"/>
>   </zone>
>
> for both the left hand and the right hand page.  This seems redundant.  Is
> this really necessary?
>
>   

My understanding is that it's necessary if you want to define a zone 
corresponding with the whole image, as well as one for the two pages, 
and if the surface is different again. I agree that it looks odd, but 
I'm a bit reluctant to change it at this stage without Conal's input.

> Under 11.3.2, a Unicode character is referenced by its codepoint "x204A",
> which is as strange notation.  I recommend to use the established form
> U+204A to refer to Unicode codepoints throughout.
>   

OK

> typo:  "alternaative"
>
>   
Tx!

> The use of <g> in the example in 11.3.2, which I noticed today for the first
> time makes me uneasy:
>
> According to its <desc>, <g>:
> <q>(character or glyph) represents a non-standard character or glyph.
> @ref	points to a description of the character or glyph intended. </q>
>
> This would preclude the use for more than one glyph.  Since the intention is
> to docment the abbreviation, which is arguably one glyph, <g> could be seen
> to represent the abbreviation, referenced through the @ref attribute, but
> not the characters "er" or "per" as in the example.
>
> I would therefore propose to rewrite the example using these characters as
> the content of <g>:
>
> eu<g ref="#er">er</g>y <g ref="#per">per</g>sone that loketh after heuen
> hath a place in this
> ladder
>
> and similarily for the following examples in this section.  This would have
> the additional benefit of making the implementation of processing software
> etc. much more straightforward.
>
> I am sorry to make this observation at such a late date, but this is the
> first time I noticed this (I believe this has been recently added, no?).
> But anyhow, I think it is important to demonstrate correct usage, therefore
> think it is absolutely necessary to fix this.
>
>   
This is OK for the earlier examples, and I have made the suggested 
changes there, but it wouldn't work for the later examples where <am> 
and <ex> are introduced. This has also been the subject of some debate 
on one of the lists recently, so I'm  reluctant to rock this part of the 
boat without further discussion -- James?


> (I haven't finished the chapter yet, but wanted to post this observation
> immediately.  other comments might follow)
>
> Christian
>
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>   



More information about the tei-council mailing list