Paul F. Schaffner
PFSchaffner at umich.edu
Fri Nov 18 19:02:21 EST 2011
This inconsistency is one that I of course have drawn attention
to in the past, but I'd point out that though the examples
of 'narrow' signed are more numerous than those of 'broad'
signed in the guidelines,
-- the example actually attached to the element definition
is of the broad variety, which to my mind gives it far
-- the prose definition, murky as it is, seems much more
suited to the broad than to the narrow interpretation:
i.e. "the closing salutation, etc." -- it doesn't even
mention the *name* of the person. If anything, it would
seem to describe the 'yours truly' rather than the 'J. Smith,'
and certainly not the latter at the expense of the former.
-- the tag is so old, and so common, that narrowing it at
all would break half the TEI documents in the world. And
much more than half of ours.
-- to be honest, the 'narrow' definition just doesn't make
any sense to me, for reasons I have explained before,
and virtually impossible to apply. That, at any rate,
is why I stopped trying, went the broad way,
and added <list> to make it more consistent with the facts
on the ground.
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Looking at the examples of <signed> in the Glines, they seem a bit
uncertain as to whether the <signed> is meant to include
-- just the name of the person signing
-- the formulaic phrase forming part of it
-- both things together
<signed>Thine to command <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
is inconsistent with
<salute>Yours more than my own,</salute>
Since there are more of the latter than the former, I think the former
should be corrected to match. Which in turn means that I would much
rather see the content of <signed> narrowed down to include only
model.nameLike vel sim., and this example tagged as follows
More information about the tei-council