On 2 May 2011, at 07:41, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
> Fine with me, but I don't understand your sense of weirdness.
> This may be one of those dialect differences that have developed
> in the long use of core tags, for to us, trailer ('a closing
> title or footer') has *always* enjoyed the semantics of head
> ('any type of [beginning] title .. or heading'): a trailer is a head that
> appears at the end; a head is a trailer that appears at the
> beginning. I.e., a head and a trailer mean the same thing
What was upsetting me was Lou's claim that we would use <trailer>
inside <table> with _changed_ semantics. The whole idea of the TEI
elements is, after all, that their semantics is the same wherever you
meet them. You are arguing that <head> and <trailer> have the same
semantics, apart from their placement, and that's fine, but Lou implied
something else.
If <head> and <trailer> really _are_ identical, they should have the same
content model, which they don't - macro.phraseSeq (<trailer>) vs
macro.paraContent (<head>). One has to wonder why the difference:
<head> allows model.inter inside itself (ie adding bibls and lists and tables and suchlike
trash), but <trailer> doesn't. Given the claim in the Guidelines that
<trailer>s are often more discursive than <head>, seems the wrong way around.
Does one think these paired "caption" elements should contains lists and tables
and quotes and bibls? that sounds like like <opener> and <closer>.
I wonder whether <head> should be trimmed back to macro.phraseSeq ?
--
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
|
