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

[Martin Holmes]

On 12-06-14 04:48 AM, Gabriel BODARD wrote:
> I'm not sure that putting<app>  in<p>  is as abusive or flaky as has
> been implied

Fair enough. I suppose it can't be described as either if it was the 
only option previously available. :-)

> (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.)

I think we might still want to provide some clearer guidance on where 
this stuff belongs in the file (presumably either in the header or in 
<back>).

> 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.

That would be useful to have. I don't do a lot of apparatus work myself, 
so I don't have good examples to reach for.

The next question would be whether any other elements are allowed in 
<listApp> other than <app>, and if so, what should they be. I think 
people will want to provide some descriptive information about the list 
of <app>s, so I think <desc> and/or <note> would be appropriate. I don't 
see a need for anything else, though. Any thoughts on this?

Should it also nest, like other lists do? I don't see why not.

Cheers,
Martin




> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)