[tei-council] reminder

[Gabriel BODARD]

Lou Burnard wrote:
>> (2) height/width/depth: I still don't find the definitions of these 
> Had another go at improving those definitions. Dont expect you'll like 
> these any better though.

Depth I like. The other two I'm not sure I can see the difference. 
Height in particular is convoluted, since the description currently 
doesn't help at all for (e.g.) an altar inscribed on the top. In 
'height' and 'width', do we mean "e.g." instead of "i.e."?

Anyway, as Sebastian and I discussed earlier in this thread, I think the 
basic definition of height should be "measurement of the height of a 
manuscript or object" tout court, with specifics only by way of example 
(if at all).

>> (9) lb: should we add an example of the usage of 
>> lb/type=word-dividing, which currently sits a little uncomfortably in 
>> the note. I suggest "Cae<lb type="worddiv"/>sari".
> 
> Don't know what note you're referring to. Don't see the point of the 
> @type attribute. Haven't done anything.

This was discussed some months ago, and is the reason @type was allowed 
on <lb> in the first place. There is currently a note at the bottom of 
LB that says: "The type attribute may be used to characterize the 
linebreak in any respect, for example as word-breaking or not." We have 
literally thousands of examples of this in EpiDoc files, where words are 
not always tagged explicitly and it's the only way we can be sure to 
tokenize correctly. I just thought an example would help to clarify the 
use-case.

(If people feel strongly that [e.g.] "wordDividing" would be a better 
recommended value than "worddiv", I'm happy to make that part of our P5 
upgrade script.)

Best,

G

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher & Digital Classicist)

Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/