> I don't think <add> is what you want for this purpose. For one thing the
> semantics aren't quite right: although a postscript is by definition
> something added, is it the same as the kind of addition you might make in
> the body of a text?
I was uneasy with the semantics myself, though I could, I think, reconcile
myself to them.
> More significantly, the content model is wrong: you
> can't have <p>s inside it. You'd have to do that with <addSpan>.
I think (he says tentatively) that this is wrong. <ADD> does take <P>s, or
at least it used to: "<!ELEMENT add - - ((((l | lg | p | sp), ... >"
<ADDSPAN>, on the other hand, does not, since it is defined as EMPTY.
> If you do want to use <add>, you could put them INSIDE the <closer> which
> is intended to be a grouping element for all the paraphernalia at the end
> of a <div>.
Look again: inside the CLOSER is exactly where I put the <ADD>. (For once,
I took the precaution of validating the samples before showing them to the
> Obviously, it means the extra burden of requiring you to wrap the
> body of the letter in a <div> as well, even if there is no postscript.
It is not our practice to insert <DIV> levels without local
textual warrant, even when this means that similar features are tagged
with different levels of DIV. I.e., as we normally do things, letters with
postscripts would get the nested <DIV2>; letters without would not. Which
doesn't make it a less awkward 'solution.'
> Looking at your example, I would also question the wisdom of tagging
> distinct letters as <div1>s. A div is by definition incomplete. A complete
> letter should be tagged as a <text>. Then you could tag the postscripts as
> <div>s within a <back> element!
To be sure. But as you know, I can't realistically take that route: my
beginning point must always be our institutional practice of identifying,
with few exceptions, the whole book as <TEXT>. IN an otherwise undivided
book called The Collected Letters of J. Doe, each of J's letters would
normally be, for us, a DIV1 of BODY.