[tei-council] genetic draft -- responses to responses, pt. 2

James Cummings James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Mon Sep 12 09:19:02 EDT 2011

On 08/09/11 21:52, Brett Barney wrote:
> Objection retracted, now that I see that my own assumptions were the cause
> of my confusion. (A bit of explanation, for the record: When I first saw
> <metamark>  I immediately thought I knew what is was for--namely,
> *non-character* marks that signal how to read the text--based on my
> experiences encoding a bunch of manuscripts and not having any satisfactory
> way to treat them. It was easy enough to handle *textual* signals with
> <note>, but how to encode those non-textual things like arrows, swoopy
> lines, etc. has always been a puzzle.)

Just to note that I think that the discussion of metamark would 
be improved somewhat by an additional first example which was 
solely a non-textual mark of some sort? i.e. something preceding 
the Kundige Bok example that is just something like a big line 
transposing something? The distinction of text on the manuscript 
that doesn't form "part of the text itself" is a challenging 
concept for some (based on someone asking me about it at a 
conference on Friday).


Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford

More information about the tei-council mailing list