I don't know about all readers of the TEI list but for me a Metalinebreak
discourse would be a discourse about linebreaks rendered in linebreaks
(just as metalinguisitic refers to the use of verbal artefacts to
describe verbal artefacts)
> > <sic corr="the">the <lb>the</sic> >
> The linebreak changes its status as soon as you talk about it.
ontological mix of levels here related to the distinction between
"mention" and "use"
> And to be able to talk about it, write about it, refer to it in the
> succinct way editors do, you need a sign for it. Choose any, but a vertical
> bar is common practice.
> >>So, a meta-linebreak may need a sign.
> When you talk about the linebreak and determine a sign for it, you do so
> in your function as editor. Thus the sign chosen is part of your edition,
> your editorial conventions, part of the primary level of your
> edition-cum-TEI-transcription file.
Needs more than a sign (as a "standing in for")--- it needs tagging.
Such tagging can take the form of link encoding.
The way you can refer to an element is by an ID/IDREF mechanism.
Your <lb> element is given a unique identifier. Your editorial note can
target that identifier.
> >>The sign has nothing to do with TEI.
> Consequently, something like this, I would argue,:
> <corr sic="the ¦ the">the</corr>
> would not violate Lou Burnard's First Commandment.
Whether violation there is or not, how is a processor to distinguish what
the attribute value is supposed to mean? What if the manuscript you are
transcribing contains an instance of the symbol you are using to indicate
the feature you are encoding (in this case a bar (symbol) and a linebreak
You may wish to review the archive for a discussion of attribute grammars.
One by Wendell Piez in relation to the mark up of frames and divisions.
One back in March 2000 by Gregory Murphy is most useful and succinct
reminder of good practices...
Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
20th : Machine Age :: 21st : Era of Reparation