[tei-council] signed/list

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 20 Nov 2011, at 12:35, Lou Burnard wrote:

> I think you're imposing a semantics which is purely to do with 
> rendering. That's not how they thought in the Olden Days.
> 
But the Ancients did think they were recording in markup
what they saw on the printed/rendered page. They must
have had in mind the return to semi-facscimile? or maybe not.
Who knows what was in Their Wondrous Braynes.

> ....

> 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.
so its (in my typographic brain) a block-level object, not a phrase.

I dont think we're actually disagreeing much. the issue is whether
<signed> is limited to one name at a time. If its NOT, then we arguably need
things like <list> in it. If its essentially limited to being a  single name,
then its <name role="signed">?


> It occupies two lines, broken in the 
> middle of the word "disloyaltie" with a hyphen. No trace of that in this 
> encoding either.
interesting but I would argue not ultimately relevant. 
--
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