[tei-council] TEI TITE question

[Piotr Bański]

It seems to me that <i>, <it>, <ital> and friends are on the leaves of
interoperability -- they are what often has to be aligned between
formats. In the trunk, or pivot, sits the <hi> element, with a multitude
of ways of describing it further, if necessary (even including a pointer
to an external reference system that defines "italic"). This is the rich
core through which the flow of interoperability should be directed. Add
<i> to <hi> and the result is an increase, instead of decrease, of
messiness. It opens the way for all the other HTML 3.2 stuff.

  P.

On 08/05/12 16:25, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
> I'm not entirely clear that the situation is quite the same as
> 
>  > <forename>
>  > <surname>
>  > <rs type="name">
> 
> (Or even <placeName>, <persName>, <rs type="name">.) What we have at the 
> moment is no shortcuts for <hi rend="x"> at all, because the list of 
> possible values for "x" is near infinite. (Even a short list is pretty 
> long.)
> 
> We already have a long-established way to encode the undistinguished use 
> of italics, the only argument against which is that it's more keystrokes 
> than <it>. We could easily encourage more consistency in attribute 
> values if we really wanted to--though I predict there will be resistance 
> to doing so.
> 
> There is also a certain semantic value in the <hi> element, by which I 
> mean in its very name, not it's attribute values: this text is 
> highlighted in some way to set it apart from the surrounding text. I can 
> imagine a transcription scenario when all you want to encode is that the 
> text is set apart, not how it is rendered.
> 
> My opinion remains that there is a place for elements such as <i>, <b>, 
> <sup>, etc., but that that place is in a custom schema for 
> encoders/vendors, not in the published, interchangeable TEI.
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2012 15:06, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> No!
>>
>> We give people shortcut options like<name>  and<bibl>  instead of
>> forcing them to think too much by using<forename>,<surname>, and
>> <biblStruct>  because we know that for certain envisioned uses of the
>> encoded document, these are perfectly sufficient.  How do we know that
>> it's for someone's own good to distinguish various uses of italics?
>>
>> The situation we are in right now is as if the TEI had only:
>>
>> <forename>
>> <surname>
>> <rs type="name">
>>
>> but no:
>>
>> <name>
>>
>> (I understand the distinction Gabby made between semantic and
>> presentational sugar, but now I'm talking about straightforwardness of
>> encoding.)
>>
>> --K.
>>
>> On 5/8/2012 9:58 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> Exactly! and also to avoid thinking too much. Thought takes time and
>>> costs money.
>>>
>>> On 08/05/12 14:43, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
>>>> To save money on keystrokes, no?
>>>>
>>>> On 08/05/2012 13:52, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>>> We shouldn't forget that the Tite extra tags must come from _somewhere_,
>>>>> not just plucked at random from a fevered brain.  Why did that group feel these
>>>>> were needed?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sebastian 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>