[tei-council] Fwd: TEI TITE question

[Piotr Bański]

If they sit in a separate module... maybe the module (call it...
"TEI-HTML 3.2"?) could serve as illustration of how to create
customisations. OTOH, being a module of the TEI, it won't be a
customisation any longer, and we may then want to rewrite some of the
justification for the TEI's existence.

I guess I'm being somewhat bipolar about it, the poles being "roughly
neutral" and "strongly against". I mean, when does <hi rend="sup"> hurt,
other than when you're actually keying stuff in, in an editor without
markup/content completion?

I would agree with James that <lb>, <cb>, and <pb> (I feel some strong
affinity with that one, somehow) feel different than <sup> and, well,
"<scaps>" for that matter, possibly because they have the double role of
indicating, usually, some structural-physical necessities and possibly,
in rarer cases, the author's intentions, whereas I can't see any
structural necessity in <i>.

I'm just afraid that the "sugar" module would soon become one of the
most important modules of the Guidelines, with lots of feature requests,
for completely no good reason that I can see. (From Martin M.'s,
Sebastian's and Lou's messages, I infer that I might be short-sighted in
this respect, and I'm ready to be enlightened, but, going by my gut,
this sounds a bit like "let's go back to HTML 3.2, and is <marquee>
inline or block-level?")

Best,

  P.

On 06/05/12 15:06, 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
>