[tei-council] span span span span span span span span glorious span
lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk
Sat Aug 20 05:20:50 EDT 2011
Some might say that these examples all indicate the confusion that
ensues when you mix the purely documentary view with the textual,
interpretive one. But just for fun, let's pretend there was some visible
way of representing the boundaries of personal names in the written
source in question. It's surely feasible that a scribe might wish to
show that they were actually referring to a single person called Mr
Holmes-Burnard? And hence, there needs to be *some* way of indicating
that the markup is being deleted as well as the content.
My preference therefore for (b) in my original opposition is based on
the purely pragmatic ground that if you really want to leave the markup
behind you can do so explicitly by supplying two deletions, as Martin
observed. Whereas if you do want to "delete the markup" as well as the
content, you can only really do so by spanning over it. (There are or
soon will be other more fiddly methods of course like <undo>, but this
is the only one we currently provide)
What worries me more about this, and which no-one has yet observed, is
the high probability of producing (or implying) an ill-formed document.
But using @spanTo is so fraught with the possibilities of
own-foot-destruction (as James has noted) that one more or less seems
less of a concern.
On 19/08/11 18:29, James Cummings wrote:
> On 19/08/11 17:37, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> Would it be helpful to extend this to examples beyond a paragraph break
>> to other kinds of intervening markup that might occur?
>> <persName>Mr Holmes<delSpan spanTo="#xx"/>esq.</persName> <persName>The
>> Rev'd<anchor xnl:id="xx"/> Burnard</persName>
>> Where a single stroke was used to erase "esq." and "The Rev'd". There
>> are still two personal names in this list. (Although presumably usually
>> some punctuation between them.)
> This is a much better example.
>> I'll see if I can find a real example from an inscription, in case this
>> fiction is unconvincing...
> The deletion removes the only unconvincing bit for me. :-)
> Imagine those paragraphs earlier with list items filled with the content
> above. To complicate it:
> <head>Fees for the Guild of Stationers</head>
> <item><persName>Mr Holmes<delSpan spanTo="#xx"/>esq.</persName> - viijd
> <add place="supra">xijd</add></item>
> <item><persName>The Rev'd<anchor xnl:id="xx"/> Burnard - ijs
> The two items are meant by the scribe to be maintained. How much did Mr
> Holmes pay? i.e. is the<delSpan/> including the text of the<add> or
> not? How would you encoded that a single line went from the "esq." to
> the end of "Rev'd" and then the scribe came back and added in the 'xijd'
> above the line where he had deleted viijd? I recognise there are indeed
> ways to do this, especially encoding the add elsewhere and point back to
> this location, but I think we need to make sure to be clear about this
> because this kind of spanning deletion and then adding in the
> corrections (which are not meant to then be deleted) which strike me as
> quite common. Certainly they are in my own illegible handwritten notes.
> Although I tend to agree with Lou on this, I'm sure the question will
> come up what to do when you have a deletion which spans over elements
> which it does not delete. Image two lists, semantically separate, but
> graphically adjacent. I'm guessing there is no real reason to transcribe
> one first or the other (remembering internationalisation here).
> <list rend="basically-floated-left">
> <list rend="basically-floated-right-of-above">
> 1) How do I encoded a single stroke which goes from left to right and
> crosses out blort and blort2, but not wibble or Foo2?
> 2) How do I encode the same stroke but going from right to left? (Ok,
> arguably a @rend on delSpan?)
> 3) How do I encode when with a single line I cross out from the first
> 'b' of wibble2 back up to the first 'o' of Foo, leaving 'F' and 'ble2'
> but all other content and semantics unchanged?
> I'm not sure delSpan is the right solution for these kinds of things,
> but multiple<del> elements linked together or such. I guess my worry
> is that I might have multiple elements and have a deletion that spans
> from one element to another but _doesn't_ include all the elements in
> between. The pointing forward only thing still worries me, but I
> suppose one could cover this with @rend on the delSpan.
>> On 2011-08-19 17:21, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>> That's a bit counter-intuitive to me -- I think if your strikeout
>>> explicitly crosses the paragraph boundary in a single stroke, you
>>> probably mean to delete the boundary too. But these are issues of
>>> interpretation. Perhaps we need to illustrate all three scenarios:
>>> 1. Two distinct deletions, leaving para boundaries intact.
>>> 2. One single deletion, deleting both text and para boundaries.
>>> 3. One single deletion, crossing para boundaries, but for which the
>>> encoder infers that the intention was not to delete the paragraph break.
More information about the tei-council