[tei-council] Suppressed text: summary of position (FR 2242434)
lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon Nov 2 11:22:16 EST 2009
(sorry, can't resist...)
I love the way American usage takes the word "redact" which in the
dictionary means "make suitable for publication" and turns it into a
word meaning "suppressed"... so the perfectly redacted document is a
blank sheet of paper.
It's like the way "table" as a verb -- which used to mean "put on the
table for discussion" -- now means "put on the table so as to avoid
OK, back to the need (or not) for <superfluous>.
Reading Gabby's careful discussion of this point (for which much
thanks), I find it hard to see the justification for a new element. The
distinction between "(a) included in error, and marked as superfluous by
the editor, or (b) is marked by the editor as an error, but with no
statement as to what the correct form should be" looks pretty subtle to
me. If I understand the elephant example correctly, in case (a) the
editor decided that the material is wrong, and shouldn't be there at
all, while in case (b) the material is wrong, and should be replaced by
something else. But the distinction between "replaced by nothing" and
"replaced by something" is a fine one: surely the fundamental issue,
which is what the tag should mark. is "something is wrong here" -- which
is what <sic> does.
So my preference would be to add an attribute to <sic> -- @type would do
Gabby also says this would not solve the case "for interpolated verses"
which is quite possibly true, but (if I understand his reason for saying
so) the same would apply to any phrase-level element you might invent.
Gabriel Bodard 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?)
> 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.
>> 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
>>>> the element name (see the message at the very bottom). If we missed
>>>> 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
More information about the tei-council