[tei-council] signed/list

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 20 Nov 2011, at 00:41, Lou Burnard wrote:

> This is fine as a way of structuring the collection of names. But it 
> still begs the question as to why we have tagged the thing as a <signed> 
> in the first place. What's the added value in doing that rather than say 
> wrapping them all in a <p> or a <closer> ? What does <signed> MEAN?


it could be taken a describing a signature block, as opposed to a postscript
block, both within the general container <closer>

trouble is <closer> says "groups together salutations, datelines, and similar phrases "
- the word "phrases" there is a bit of a weasel. To me, that means inline
objects, not block-level objects, which precludes any structure within the
<closer>. But the example is

<closer>
  <salute>I remain, &amp;c. &amp;c.</salute>
  <signed>H. Colburn</signed>
 </closer>

which is almost certainly two distinct  lines (ie block-level things) - the other
element here in examples is <dateline>, where the name betrays its
non-phraselike origins.

Call me a suspicious old thing, but I feel that maybe whoever coded

<closer>
  <salute>I remain, &amp;c. &amp;c.</salute>
  <signed>H. Colburn</signed>
 </closer>

thought the line break after </salute> would be preserved in
some magical way. If those two things are phraselike, it implies that the original
text has "I remain, &c. &amp;c.H. Colburn" which I would bet
much money it does not. 

Reviewing the examples of <closer>, I suggest that _all_
of them show an expectation of block-level rendering for
the child elements.

Looking at examples of <signed> in the Gidlines,  I argue all of them
describe a block-like structure.

I could argue for years over the vagueness of many bits of TEI in this area :-}
--
Stormageddon Rahtz      
Head of Information and Support Group, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente