[tei-council] Should Roma be doing this?

[James Cummings]

Just a quick note to say that I agree that list/@type is very 
difficult. I've always argued against our suggested value of 
'bulleted' because I think it muddies these waters further. 
(That it is bulleted may apply to an ordered or unordered list... 
that, to me, is a more usually a feature of its rendition.)  I 
think most people interpret ordered also as rendition (numbered) 
but being able to distinguish that you think the order in this 
list set is important versus not being important is useful.

-James

On 06/02/13 15:19, Syd Bauman wrote:
> I agree that <list> is rather tricky, now that you point out that
> type= is often used to indicate what the list *looked like in the
> original* (because, of course, except for those of us foolish enough
> to use TEI to write things like papers and websites, nobody forgets
> the TEI is about the input, not the output). But perhaps, with the
> exception of "gloss" (which really means "I'm using <list> to encode
> a 2-column <table> because it's easier), we don't need type= for this
> purpose at all. After all, we already have rend=, rendition=, and
> style=.
>
> Saying that a transcribed list is "ordered" seems a bit silly. Of
> course it's ordered, and not only that, I've encoded the items in
> that order. But perhaps "ordered" means "it has numbers (or letters)
> in front of each item", in which case rend=, rendition=, or style=
> seems like the more appropriate place to record that information. But
> perhaps "ordered" means "I am asserting that the order of these items
> was important to the author", in which case ana= seems more
> appropriate, no?
>
> But of course, when <list> is used in an authorial instead of
> transcriptional way, saying "ordered" is asserting "I want these
> things in this order, and numbered please" which seems quite helpful.
>
> I guess my point here (besides that I'm *really* tired) is that we
> should re-think list/@type entirely.
>
>> i think this case, <list>, is rather tricky, as the @type is rather
>> vital. Usually, having no @type on an element is fine, but it is
>> used very often with <list> to effectively indicate rendition.
>>
>> having a <defaultVal> is a confusion, as noted, but some prose
>> indicating what an untyped list _does_ represent would be useful.
>>
>> it would be nice to have a facsimile of what the example from Pope
>> Hadrian looked like.


-- 
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford