Sorry, Lou is right, he said <titlePart>, not <docTitle>. But it's
sort of the same thing (when viewed in light of the larger argument I
was making). The definition of <titlePart> is still "contains a
subsection or division of the title of the work, as represented on
the title page." Lou, I don't really think I've misrepresented you in
any meaningful way, have I?
>I don't at all mind being disagreed with, but I do slightly mind being
>misrepresented. I never said it should be a part of <docTitle>. I tried to
>explain in my previous post on this topic precisely that it shouldn't.
>> So I read the term "edition statement" to mean "information the book
>> offers as explicit statements about its edition", not "information
>> which a textual editor could use to determine which edition it is",
>> and I think the examples support this as well. The definition of
>> <edition> seems to me unfortunately vague but I don't think it really
>> authorizes us to use it (and by extension <docEdition>) for anything
>> but the kinds of things in the examples.
>The term edition is indeed vague. The concept is vague, so this is a Good
What I meant was that given the apparent specificity and uniformity
conveyed by the examples ("The Third Edition", "The Schools
Edition"), it was unfortunate that the wording of the definition
seemed to open up possibilities (vague ones) which were not given
enough definition to be usable, and only served to license
inconsistency and possibly misuse. If the concept is vague, then the
useful thing for an encoding standard to do is at least spell out the
"low-hanging fruit" among the possible usages, and suggest a limiting
range of application (e.g., don't use this for textual variants).
>> I also agree with Robin that <tpText> is a copout, and suggested it
>> mostly in anticipation of the downside of the alternative (lots and
>> lots of very specific elements which would contribute to the fear
>> that TEI is Too Big and Complicated). But I confess that's where my
>> sympathies lie... anyway, at the WWP we created an element called
>> <docSale> which can be used for things like:
>Why is it a copout to prefer the generic above the culturally specific?
>If you really think that, there's an aweful; lot of the TEI you're going
>to have to junk...
Well, I was thinking that the title page is actually a place where
there's a fair amount of useful specificity, falling into some fairly
well-definable categories (like the legal stuff, the
price/sale-related stuff), so just sticking it all into a <tpText>
element would be losing an opportunity to distinguish and permit
retrieval. But following up on the "TEI often chooses to be usefully
general" hint in your reply, now I think what I'd choose might be
<tpText> with a type attribute, with values to be set by the
And to be honest, I don't think the TEI generally chooses to be
generic over culturally specific in a disabling way--on the contrary,
the whole Guidelines are an effort (variably successful) to survey
the range of culturally specific practices, abstract from them what
they share, and allow options for accommodating variability. So the
concept of the title page, which is culturally specific but pretty
widely shared, is in general well accommodated: the various kinds of
things it can have are almost all accounted for, but their order,
verbosity, and presence/absence is flexible.
So Lou, where do you feel that TEI prefers the generic to the
culturally specific (I mean, in a way that *requires* you to be
generic unless you modify the Guidelines)? and do you think that the
choice is on the whole the right one in these cases?