[tei-council] Fwd: TEI TITE question

[Kevin Hawkins]

Note that at http://purl.org/TEI/fr/3075996 , in which we discuss 
incorporating parts of Tite into P5, we've considering having a fixed 
list of values for @rend in Tite.  This solution could potentially be 
used in P5 as well.

On 5/6/12 9:06 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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
>