[tei-council] Hyphenation discussion

[Gabriel Bodard]

Maybe I should simplify this rambling email to two concrete proposals 
(neither of which I'm pushing particularly strongly):

(1) instead of "noBreak" and (problematic) "mayBreak", we recommend a 
single value (either "noBreak" or "inWord") and the use of <certainty/> 
to indicate the possibility that we're either unsure or don't want to 
commit whether this linebreak is in the middle of a single word or not.

0r:

(2) in addition to "noBreak" and "mayBreak", we consider what the value 
we want for linebreaks that *do* break words.

G

On 17/01/2011 11:47, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> On the whole I'm agnostic about the values used in this case, so long as
> they're unambiguous (which they seem to be).
>
> Wearing my EpiDoc hat, I am concerned that we (EpiDoc) follow as closely
> as possible the canonical TEI recommendation, which is precisely why we
> recently changed our recommended usage from "worddiv" to Lou's preferred
> "inWord". It's a little saddening to see this now being preserved only
> for backward compatibility with "existing recommendations". :-(
>
> But if "noBreak" and "mayBreak" are more clear, and mirror nicely, then
> so be it (and, with Sebastian, I would sooner have one recommendation
> than two, even if it means persuading EpiDoc to change again). Certainly
> I don't think "maybeInWord" would be attractive. But perhaps then, as
> Piotr points out, the ambiguity of "mayBreak" demands more values; or
> rather, I would suggests, it suggests we should use<certainty/>  to
> specify how and for what reason we are uncertain about the value of
> "noBreak" (which then might as well be "inWord").
>
> Another question: preserving the nice mirroring or "noBreak" and
> "mayBreak", what value would we give for the positive side of this coin?
> "doesBreak"? (Serious question: while this would normally be the default
> value, I can certainly imagine cases where I'd want to specify the value
> of all linebreaks in a text, for example where lineation is completely
> unrelated to tokenization--as on coins, seals, stoichedon inscriptions,
> etc.)
>
> G
>
> On 16/01/2011 21:26, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Many thanks for helpful improvements.
>>
>> Now standing by for input from other council members.
>>
>> Gabby, what's your take on the proposed values for @type?
>>
>> On 16/01/11 17:37, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>> I'm broadly in favour, but some nitpicks below
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

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/