[tei-council] Fwd: TEI TITE question

[Lou Burnard]

If @rend is hard to use "meaningfully" surely it's the right choice for 
sub/sup which are "seldom semantic".

I can't understand why people think sup and sub matter in things like 
page signatures or ordinal numbers. I can see why they matter in 
mathematical expressions, but there's other ways of doing that and there 
they have clear semantics. Whether we spell "first" 1<sup>st</sup> or 
1st really doesn't seem to matter a great deal, and if it does, I'd 
rather use the Unicode glyph variant anyway (I know I know, there are 
some missing)(

But I suppose a module called sugar is the way to go. Needs a more 
sensible name though.


On 06/05/12 13:22, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> This has been raised, but drifted off the agenda in the past.  I am
> in favour, particularly for sup and sub, because @rend is so hard to
> use meaningfully, and sup/sub are so seldom semantic. I and b are a
> bit harder, but dramatically I would vote for them. We could put them
> in a module call sugar, and add olist and ulist at the same time.
>
> .sebastian
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message ----- From: "James
> Cummings"<James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk> Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 12:29
> Subject: [tei-council] Fwd: TEI TITE question To: "TEI
> Council"<tei-council at lists.village.virginia.edu> Cc: "Martin
> Mueller"<martinmueller at NORTHWESTERN.EDU>
>
> Hi MartinM,
>
> I'm forwarding this to the council list for open discussion since
> that is publicly archived (and so you'll be able to follow the
> discussion in the archive).
>
> I'd argue that lb/pb/cb are somehow of a higher structural category
> in the effect they have on teh text and our interpretation of it.
> Whereas sup/sub/bold/i are merely phrase-level highlighting.  My
> worry, I guess, is that if people have<i>text</i>  they are less
> likely to encode the reason for the italics and concentrate more on
> presentational aspects of the source text rather than their
> intellectual interpretation. (Though inside sourceDoc, of course,
> this admittedly rather flimsy argument falls down entirely.)  My
> unexamined reservation, I suppose, is probably based on the idiom
> that it is much better to say what things are than what they look
> like, and these convenience syntactic sugar encodings are more about
> what stuff looks like than what function they are playing. As I said,
> a flimsy argument, but just my initial gut feeling.
>
> What do others think?
>
> -James
>
>
> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:         TEI TITE
> question Date:    Sat, 5 May 2012 23:16:00 +0000 From:    Martin
> Mueller<martinmueller at northwestern.edu> To:      James
> Cummings<James.Cummings at OUCS.OX.AC.UK>
>
>
>
> James,
>
> has there ever been a discussion about the convenience features of
> TITE (sup, sub, bold, i) becoming parts of the main TEI set, along
> the lines of lb or pb being shortcuts for<milestone unit="line"/>. I
> can see quite a few arguments in favour of this, and not really many
> against it. It might encourage people to be sloppy in some ways. But
> M<sup>rs</sup>  has something going for it over M<hi
> rend="sup">rs</hi>. And there are a lot of those.
>
> MM -- tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived