[tei-council] Suppressed text: summary of position (FR 2242434)

[Peter Boot]

I would say that these are different elements: David's element makes no 
claim the source text is somehow wrong, while Gabby's one does. For 
David's case, I'd use hi rend="none" or something like that.

Peter

Dot Porter schreef:
> I have no objections to the element, but it seems that David and Gabby
> are talking about two different elements. Gabby's element means "This
> text is in the source text, but the editor thinks it doesn't really
> belong/was included in error" whereas David's element means "This text
> is in the source text, but is being suppressed by someone for some
> reason." Gabby's is, in effect, a more specific version of David's. Do
> we want two different elements? Or is this a difference that could be
> taken care of with a @type attribute? Or am I misunderstanding
> something?
> 
> Dot
> 
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, I really don't like the idea of the element name
>> being a processing instruction (if nothing else because most editions
>> *don't* actually want to completely suppress or expunge said text). I
>> want the element name to mean, "This text is in the source text, but the
>> editor things it doesn't really belong/was included in error."
>>
>> I personally can't think of anything better than <superfluous>, and only
>> tried to think of something shorter in case anyone objected to such a
>> long element name.
>>
>> (Are there any objections to the element per se, before we get embroiled
>> in naming wars?)
>>
>> G
>>
>> David Sewell a écrit :
>>> I don't have a strong case to make pro or con the proposal from the
>>> point of view of epigraphy or manuscript editing, not being a
>>> specialist. However, I would vote for the element with the name
>>> <suppress> (not <suppressed>) because of its utility as a
>>> quasi-processing instruction for born-digital documents. Suppose I am
>>> writing minutes for a TEI Board discussion of the TEI Tite bids that
>>> includes names of vendors. But those names should be kept confidential
>>> in any Web version of the minutes. So:
>>>
>>>  We agreed that <suppress reason="redact">Vendor X</suppress> is ...
>>>
>>> which could be rendered as
>>>
>>>  We agreed that [redacted] is ...
>>>
>>> Of course there are other ways to accomplish the same thing, and I do
>>> not feel passionate about this if someone has a good objection.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30 Oct 2009, at 18:17, Elena Pierazzo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know Sebastian said that tomorrow (today) was the last possible
>>>>> day to
>>>>> include new stuff for the next release, but I feared we arrived a bit
>>>>> last-moment, especially because we are actually reopening the games
>>>>> for
>>>>> the element name (see the message at the very bottom). If we missed
>>>>> the
>>>>> deadline, we apologise...
>>>>>
>>>> its ok, if everyone agrees, we can get this in the release.
>>>> --
>>>> Sebastian Rahtz
>>>> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
>>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>>>>
>>>> Sólo le pido a Dios
>>>> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
> 
> 
>