[tei-council] Location of <app>s for external apparatus

[Gabriel BODARD]

I'm not sure that putting <app> in <p> is as abusive or flaky as has 
been implied (but I don't especially want to defend it too vigorously, 
as I like the alternative <listApp> being offered); in my usage, we have 
a div[type=edition] and a div[type=apparatus], and the apparatus 
contains a series of textual or philological comments that are presented 
in the original edition (or in the intended output, if this is a 
born-digital text) in one or more paragraphs. (Because epigraphic texts 
are short, the apparatus is usually a separate section after the text, 
rather than a footnote-like area at the bottom of each page.)

As for sorting appLists into typed groups, critical texts sometimes have 
more than one running apparatus at the bottom of the page, don't they? 
(I've seen up to three in particularly weird editions.) I suppose one is 
manuscript/witness collation, another may be philological/emendations, 
maybe stemmatic evidence listed separately? Again in epigraphic and 
papyrological texts, "apparatus" also includes notes on phsysical 
features of the text. ("The surviving stroke at the end of l. 3 includes 
a strong upper serif and is consistent with B, D, P, R or Þ.") If you 
want examples of types, there might be a few.

Cheers,

G

On 13/06/2012 23:09, Martin Holmes wrote:
> Yes -- the issue is:
>
>    - We don't offer guidance
>
>    - The guidance Lou and James suggested offering (putting<app>s in a
> <div>) doesn't actually work
>
>    - Similar solutions look a bit ad-hoc and flaky (putting<app>s in
> e.g.<p>)
>
> So I think everything would be cleaner if we offered<listApp>, and it
> would also give people the option to sort<app>s into groups for
> specific purposes (not sure what those purposes would be, myself) and
> type them with @type and @subtype.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 12-06-13 02:43 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> Isn't what's broken here the fact that P5 mentions use of an external
>> apparatus but gives no clear guidance on how to do this?  Gabby says you
>> can do this by "collecting loose apps together in a<p>" ... but this
>> sounds like tag abuse to me.  If people want to encode a list of
>> apparatus entries, then I think we need to offer<listApp>.
>>
>> On 6/13/2012 3:30 PM, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
>>> For the record, I think I just collect loose apps together in a<p>    (or
>>> sometimes one per<p>, I think my XSLT doesn't care which). In principle
>>> a listApp would be useful (although it would only be *nice*, rather than
>>> fixing something that's actually broken), although app should of course
>>> continue to be available in<p>    because we also use them for inline
>>> apparatus features.
>>>
>>> </rambling>
>>>
>>> On 13/06/2012 19:26, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>> It turns out<app>     cannot be a child of<div>     (so either James
>>>> customized his schema when listing<app>s in a<div>, or he's
>>>> misremembering). I'm beginning to think that<listApp>     might be a good
>>>> idea as a way of collecting<app>s which are external to the base text,
>>>> but I'm not sure where<listApp>     should be available yet, or how. Any
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> On 12-06-12 05:21 PM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Martin Holmes<mholmes at uvic.ca>      wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This ticket landed on my plate following Ann Arbor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://purl.org/tei/bug/3497356>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The basic issue was that Jens thought a<listApp>      element might be
>>>>>> useful, for collecting together a set of<app>      elements in an apparatus
>>>>>> which is not embedded in the base text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These were my instructions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "MH will ask the submitter (and the TEI-L, pointing to the ticket) for
>>>>>> any examples of the use of<div>      which suggest that<listApp>      might be
>>>>>> useful (for instance, organization of<apps>      into multiple<div>      s with
>>>>>> @type). "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, it seems from the ticket that James, Lou and Jens himself all
>>>>>> agree that<listApp>      is not necessary, so I see no reason to resurrect
>>>>>> this, other than to add some clarification to the relevant guidelines
>>>>>> section to suggest that<app>s might be stored in a<div
>>>>>> type="apparatus">      element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If no-one has any objections, that's what I'll do, rather than going
>>>>>> back to Jens or TEI-L.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like a sane approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> stuart
>>>>
>>>
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/