We have used these extensively (and perhaps rather loosely) in the Legal
Māori Archive in the following manner. This example taken from
http://www.nzetc.org/tei-source/Mac01Comp.xml /
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Mac01Comp.html
<div>
<head> <!-- doc title --> </head>
<opener>
<address>
<addrLine>Downing Street,</addrLine>
</address>
<date>29th December, 1837.</date>
</opener>
<salute><hi rend="sc">Dear Lord Durham</hi>,—</salute>
<p> <!-- message body --> </p>
<closer>
<salute>I have, &c.,</salute>
<signed>
<hi rend="sc">Glenelg.</hi>
</signed>
<salute>The Right Hon. the Earl of Durham, &c.</salute>
</closer>
</div>
cheers
stuart
Lou Burnard wrote:
> Well, I *think* I understand the difference between <signed> and
> <salute>, though I entirely agree with Paul that these elements have
> been around a long time and consequently may have been induced to stray
> from the straight and narrow by the temptations of hasty encoders
> (insert brief excursus on the corruption of innocence here)
>
> <salute> is for a phrase containing a salutation e.g. "To the Reader"
> "Dear Sir" "Sincerely yours" etc.
>
> <signed> is for a phrase containing a signature i.e. (necessarily) a
> name of some sort, possibly prefixed by some kind of salutation.
>
> It is common practice to wrap the combination of a salutation and a
> signature within a <closer> when the combination appears as one of the
> div-liminal bits of cruft at the end of a div: see many examples in the
> Guidelines. Such examples (which Paul calls "group 2" below) far
> outnumber the "group 1" case, where the <signed> is considered to
> contain a salutation-like phrase combined with the signature itself, and
> thus have a better right to be considered canonical I think. The Group
> 1s, where the two are presented as a single unit (e.g. "Your
> affectionate son Binkie", or "thine to command, H Moseley") tagged with
> just <signed> are rarer, and indicate (I suppose) a less nuanced
> encoding. There is of course no reason why "thine to command" should not
> be tagged as a <salute>, if it is regarded as sufficiently
> "salutation-like" -- either within the <signature> or as a sibling to it.
>
>
>
> On 08/09/10 14:56, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>>
>>> another detail: How differs<signed> from<salute>?
>>>
>>> In the examples we have
>>>
>>> <closer>
>>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>>> </closer>
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> <signed>Thine to command
>>> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>>> </signed>
>> This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
>> past, tried to make it one!<signed> and<salute> are two
>> of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
>> practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
>> they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
>> between them far from obvious --
>>
>>
>> SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
>> dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"
>>
>> SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
>> dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
>> salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."
>>
>>
>> -- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
>> groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
>> establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
>> arrive at a more exact and practical definition:
>>
>> Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
>> above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of<signed>. Since
>> this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
>> the *quintessential* example of<signed>.
>>
>> <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
>> <name>Robert Greene.</name>
>> </signed>
>>
>> <signed>Thine to command<name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>> </signed>
>>
>>
>> Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
>> phrases as part of<salute>; since these examples include the
>> canonical example of<salute>, one might even suppose that
>> they are the quintessential example of<salute>:
>>
>> <closer>
>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>>
>> <closer>
>> <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>> <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
>> in the latter group<signed> is wrapped in<closer>,
>> whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
>> see what difference that makes.
>>
>> In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
>> and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
>> the signatory as part of<signed>, and all phrases attached to
>> the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
>> etc.) as part of<salute>, and always place both within
>> either<closer> or<opener>. So we would tag like this
>>
>> <closer>
>> <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
>> <signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> or this
>>
>> <opener>
>> <signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
>> defender of the faith,&c.</signed>
>> <salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
>> </opener>
>>
>> [We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
>> appear to suggest that<signed> belongs only at the close,
>> and<salute> belongs in either the opener or the closer.
>> For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
>> or at end of a div, indifferently.]
>>
>> (Others do it differently.)
>>
>> pfs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Paul Schaffner | [log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
>> 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/ New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/ Institutional Repository
|
