[tei-council] signed/list

[Lou Burnard]

I think you're imposing a semantics which is purely to do with 
rendering. That's not how they thought in the Olden Days.

The Colburn example is a strong argument for what I have been proposing 
-- that there is a semantic distinction between the "H Colburn" part and 
the "I remain" part, which the tagging represents by marking the latter 
as the salute, and the former as the signature.  I can't find the 
original, so I cannot confirm whether or not the distinction is also 
typographic as you surmise.

There are some much better examples of <closer> at 
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DS.html#DSOC

In the Robert Green example you cite in another message:
p>.... erites of my Saiuour to whom I commend thee, and commit
      my soule.</p>
   <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
      <name>Robert Greene.</name>
   </signed>
I agree that the salutation/signature distinction is not made (or made 
in a different way). Whether this is out of laziness on the part of the 
encoder, or out of a desire to show there is more than one way to do it, 
I don't know, but I don't think it has much to do with the formatting of 
the original. As a matter of fact, looking at the original which I just 
happen to have handy, the Greene example is set as a block, 
typographically marked off from the rest because it's not in black 
letter and it is right aligned. It occupies two lines, broken in the 
middle of the word "disloyaltie" with a hyphen. No trace of that in this 
encoding either.

On 20/11/11 11:30, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> 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
>