[tei-council] signed/list

Kevin Hawkins kevin.s.hawkins at ultraslavonic.info
Sat Nov 19 15:30:32 EST 2011

On 11/19/11 2:17 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 19/11/11 19:02, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> One thing this discussion shows up is the varying views of what<list>
>> is. In some minds, it is a block-level object, and abusive
>> in a phrase-level context. In other minds, it is a typographic
>> feature used widely all over the place, even within phrases
>> (liked<signed>).
>    The question is whether you think<signed>  should contain one thing or
> several -- is it meant to be a "signature block" or a signature? My
> claim is that is not meant to be the former -- we already have<closer>
> (or<list>  !) for that purpose.

So Lou is arguing for the "narrow" <signed>, to use Paul's terminology 
-- that is, just the name of the person signing.  Paul explained that he 
doesn't think it actually works to distinguish between this and the rest 
of the stuff in the closer, and both Paul and Sebastian have argued that 
if we change the definition of <signed> to narrow it, we will break a 
lot of documents (and thereby violate the Birnbaum Doctrine).

If we were creating P6, I would be okay with having <signed> with a 
narrow definition, knowing that Paul and others who found the definition 
impossible to work with could simply use <closer> without any embed 
<signed> elements.

Still, even with a narrow definition of <signed> that said to use this 
for only names of people signing, I don't see why we wouldn't allow 
people to include an embedded <list> with an <item> around each name.  I 
realize the content model wouldn't be as elegant as use of 
model.nameLike, as Lou proposed, but I don't see how we could justify 
not allowing <list> here.


More information about the tei-council mailing list