[tei-council] word-dividing
Elena Pierazzo
elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk
Thu Jul 2 13:01:14 EDT 2009
I have followed the discussion without taking part partially because I
thought it was a trivial matter (sorry guys...), and partially because I
had no particular preferences to express.
I admit my preference now is set for inWord (thanks Lou), but: as the
Guidelines are already published with the recommendation for 'nobreak'
is there room for any further discussion/modification? This is a genuine
question, meaning: can we now change what has already been published?
Elena
Lou Burnard wrote:
> Thank you Gabby! I can read the list in digest form, I discover, though
> not (yet) post to it.
> When I can, I shall be posting the following comment
>
> "midword" is definitely good. How about "inWord" ? (shorter, doesnt make
> me think of a cricketting position)
>
>
> Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>
>> Sorry, Lou: I thought I remembered that you had taken part in
>> conversations on the EpiDoc Markup list several years ago, and so
>> assumed that you were still on it.
>>
>> http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/markup.html
>>
>> That wasn't supposed to be an obscure reference.
>>
>> G
>>
>> Lou Burnard a écrit :
>>
>>> What is the "markup" list? I'm not on it, and no-onewho is saw fit to
>>> make the suggestion here or I'd have probably seized on it with
>>> gratitude. I really must protest at the implication that we're making
>>> arbitrary decisions here. There was a long discussion when the @type
>>> attribute was added to these elements ages ago. No one proposed any
>>> suggested values at that time. In the first message in the thread below,
>>> you see Gabriel saying he's open to suggestions for them, but again no
>>> discussion occurred. My report that we'd decided on "nobreak" here at
>>> Oxford is at the most recent end of the thread, not the impost distant
>>> one. Give us a break Dot, we're trying to get the job done, and the
>>> weather's not helping!
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I just received mail from someone else concerned with how
>>> this textual phenomenon is to be encoded. Their practice is to record
>>> *two* <lb>s -- one for the "facs" view of the document (faithful to its
>>> appearance) and the other for the "editorial" view (in which the word is
>>> reassembled). So if they found a word "foobar" hyphenated at a
>>> linebreak, it would be recorded like this
>>>
>>> foo<lb type="facs"/>bar<lb type="edit"/>
>>>
>>> I don't know how many thousands of cases they've got marked up like that
>>> already...
>>>
>>>
>>> Dot Porter wrote:
>>>
>>>> "midword" was suggested on the Markup list. It is not overly Latinate,
>>>> it is clear, I think, to most people (a line break in the middle of
>>>> the word), and in my opinion it's better than "nobreak". I'd still
>>>> rather see worddiv given that 1) (in my opinion again) it's not as
>>>> ambiguous as some seem to think, 2) it effectively describes the lb
>>>> (dividing a word) and 3) it has a longstanding history of usage (since
>>>> at least 2002, and currently used in something in the order of 60,000
>>>> existing EpiDoc TEI documents). I really do think that should count
>>>> for something.
>>>>
>>>> More generally, again in my opinion, this entire discussion represents
>>>> what I hope is a one-off problem. In one of his earliest messages in
>>>> this thread, Lou said, "After much head scratching here in Oxford,
>>>> we've decided on "nobreak"." No real room left for discussion, just a
>>>> decision made. No request for suggestions. David did make a
>>>> suggestion, but it wasn't asked for. The argument Lou sent today,
>>>> which sets out his thoughts in some detail, should have come before
>>>> the final text went out in the Guidelines.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's dangerous to give a single person, or group of people,
>>>> the power to override everyone else who should be involved in the
>>>> decision making process even if, as in this case, it's not a very
>>>> important matter. That's all.
>>>>
>>>> Dot
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Lou
>>>> Burnard<lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With a few exceptions, the examples throughout the Guidelines are
>>>>> chosen
>>>>> as examples of textual phenomena, not of ways those textual phenomena
>>>>> have been treated in particular encoding projects. Since @type on <lb>
>>>>> or <pb> was only recently introduced it's unsurprising that there
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> that many existing TEI precedents to follow and, while I yield to
>>>>> no-one
>>>>> in my admiration for the epidoc project, I would resist pressure to
>>>>> make
>>>>> it (or any other project) the sole driver for decisions about what
>>>>> goes
>>>>> in the Guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> The particular phenomenon we're dealing with here can be -- has
>>>>> been --
>>>>> dealt with in several different ways -- there are thousands of cases
>>>>> also of texts in which the encoder has chosen to treat this phenomenon
>>>>> in a completely different way! In the Bibliotheque Virtuelle des
>>>>> Humanistes, for example, they mark the word-fragments introduced by
>>>>> the
>>>>> presence of the <lb/> explicitly. So they would have something like
>>>>>
>>>>> <caes full="imperator">imp</caes><lb/><caes>erator</caes>
>>>>>
>>>>> ("caes" is short for "caesura" which means something different in
>>>>> French, apparently)
>>>>> In other projects, (probably even more numerous) they decided to just
>>>>> move the <lb> to the end of the nearest word: imperator<lb/>
>>>>>
>>>>> My objection to wordDiv, wordDivision, vel sim is just that it's
>>>>> ambiguous as between "division between words" or "division within a
>>>>> word". Since the whole point of this attribute is to specify exactly
>>>>> which of those two is the case , this seems a bad idea. With all
>>>>> humility, I still think that "nobreak" is less ambiguous -- it implies
>>>>> that although the name of the element bearing it implies some kind of
>>>>> "break", in this particular case, the break isn't considered to be
>>>>> there. I am perfectly amenable to other suggestions, but the only one
>>>>> I've seen so far is David's. "intraword" is certainly unambiguous (at
>>>>> least to those who've been properly educated) but does seem a bit
>>>>> long-winded. Remember that we'd like these values to be comprehensible
>>>>> to native speakers of non-Latin languages as well if possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabriel BODARD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure it doesn't terribly matter what the attribute value is, since
>>>>>> it's
>>>>>> not constrained, but aren't these examples supposed where possible
>>>>>> to be
>>>>>> based on real usage? Why then would you invent an attribute value
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> no one's using, rather than using the value that has been used in
>>>>>> tens
>>>>>> of thousands of examples in the real world?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We considered that, but it's a bit latinate, don't you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with Dan that there's no available time to sweat this
>>>>>>> further
>>>>>>> (despite the weather :-). If people want to make further changes to
>>>>>>> wording (I'm assuming everyone has actually looked at the newly
>>>>>>> revised
>>>>>>> examples and discussion?) they will go into the mix for next
>>>>>>> time, but
>>>>>>> we need to get this error fixing release out the door today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Sewell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a naive non-epigraphist, I would find this unambiguous, for
>>>>>>>> what it's
>>>>>>>> worth:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <lb type="intraword"/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Dot Porter wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dan, I don't think anyone is suggesting the value be technically
>>>>>>>>> controlled, but we want an example in the Guidelines. And as
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> tend to take the Guidelines suggestions quite seriously, it's
>>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>>> considering what the suggested value be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dot
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM, O'Donnell,
>>>>>>>>> Dan<daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I also don't understand why we are sweating the att value. Are
>>>>>>>>>> we really interested in controlling this vocabulary? Why?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>>>>>> Daniel O'Donnell
>>>>>>>>>> University of Lethbridge
>>>>>>>>>> (From my mobile telephone)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- original message ---
>>>>>>>>>> From: "Dot Porter" <dot.porter at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [tei-council] word-dividing
>>>>>>>>>> Date: July 1, 2009
>>>>>>>>>> Time: 10:17:9
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't really understand the concern here. An lb (or cb, or
>>>>>>>>>> pb) that
>>>>>>>>>> appears in the middle of a word physically divides that word,
>>>>>>>>>> hence
>>>>>>>>>> "worddiv". As long as this usage is defined clearly in the
>>>>>>>>>> Guidelines
>>>>>>>>>> ("use @type='worddiv' to mark lb, pb or cb that physically divide
>>>>>>>>>> words") I don't think there will be any confusion on the part of
>>>>>>>>>> users. It's clear. And there's a history of usage, since
>>>>>>>>>> EpiDoc is
>>>>>>>>>> already doing this, and has been. Why mess with something that
>>>>>>>>>> works?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dot
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Gabriel
>>>>>>>>>> Bodard<gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. I guess my only objection is that it sounds more like a
>>>>>>>>>>> processing instruction than a description of the text. But I
>>>>>>>>>>> take your
>>>>>>>>>>> point. Let's see if anyone comes up with any suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>> better than
>>>>>>>>>>> either of ours. :-) (It would be nice if what we suggested in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> example was something that is actually being used... and if
>>>>>>>>>>> we come to a
>>>>>>>>>>> consensus I'll recommend changing EpiDoc usage to whatever we
>>>>>>>>>>> use in the
>>>>>>>>>>> example in the guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (If we don't come to a consensus, as you say, no problem.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I do not follow your logic. "nobreak" says
>>>>>>>>>>>> something about
>>>>>>>>>>>> the type of <lb> -- it is a "non-breaking" line break. The
>>>>>>>>>>>> implication
>>>>>>>>>>>> is that other <lb> (or <cb> etc) s are "breaking" i.e. they are
>>>>>>>>>>>> understood not only to mark the start of a line, column etc,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but also to
>>>>>>>>>>>> break a word. so that foo<lb/>bar should be considered to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be two words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There are breaks between your words conceptually, I hope? If
>>>>>>>>>>>> not, what
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the point of trying to distinguish types of <lb> anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If epidockers dont like this though they can always make up
>>>>>>>>>>>> their own
>>>>>>>>>>>> terminology -- the type value is not constrained by the schema.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I like "nobreak", as it doesn't really say
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the status of the lb (or, as Dot points out, cb, pb, etc.);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since there are never (or rarely) breaks _between_ words in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> our texts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea behind "worddiv" was that this is a linebreak that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mid-word, splitting it atwain, as Dan has it. Let me canvas
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the EpiDoc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> markup list, and see if people there have opinions one way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to contribute to this...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After much head scratching here in Oxford, we've decided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on "nobreak"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added a couple more examples and a bit more discussion,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples from some real projects too. Affected are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lb> and the discussion of milestones in CO.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Daniel Paul O'Donnell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think "word-dividing" in this case means "splitting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual words
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atwain" rather than "demarcating their boundaries" ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In my edition of Cædmon's Hymn I needed to encode space
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similarly explicitly: i.e. indicating whether it fell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within the word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or between words: the stylesheets (such as they were in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those days)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handled them differently depending on the value of @type
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which I'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made universal). White space wouldn't have done it for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me, because I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was reformatting the data with and without the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word-internal spaces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lines depending on the view the user selected.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -dan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gabriel BODARD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lou Burnard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (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.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't mind adding examples, but this one confuses me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point that the <lb/> in your example does NOT divide the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word ? so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both "wordDividing" and "worddiv" seem exactly the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want here. How about "nowordbreak" or "nwb"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know I lost this argument last time, but I still think
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in practice
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd deal with this by putting in whitespace where the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <lb> coincided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a word boundary and leaving it out where it didn't!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> 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/
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>>>>>>>> Dot Porter (MA, MSLS) Metadata Manager
>>>>>>>>>> Digital Humanities Observatory (RIA), Regus House, 28-32 Upper
>>>>>>>>>> Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
>>>>>>>>>> -- A Project of the Royal Irish Academy --
>>>>>>>>>> Phone: +353 1 234 2444 Fax: +353 1 234 2400
>>>>>>>>>> http://dho.ie Email: dot.porter at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> tei-council mailing list
>>>>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>>>>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
--
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk
More information about the tei-council
mailing list