I appreciate Lou's remarks about the semantics of the "corresp" attribute
and recommendation to use <note> in combination with <ptr>.
The pointer class elements can capture information through optional
attributes such as "type", "resp", "crdate". These optional attributes
allow teams to manage identification of multiple encoders and multiple
<l id="v45">a line of verse <ptr resp="wrt" target="n59"
<note id="n59" resp="jfk"> ... </note>
The <ptr> element specifies a destination. It is possible to specify, with
a <ptr> within a <note> element, information to connect the note with a
A reading of section 14.1.1 of the Guidelines would offer two choices for
encoding a double connection:
One choice is to encode from a model of multiple destinations from one
<ptr target="v45 n59"/>
The DTD does assign a keyword IDREFS to the "target" attribute of the
The other choice would emply the <link> element to specify association.
<link targets="v45 n59"/>
The Guidelines appear to suggest that one choice is just a more compact
encoding of the other and the two are "logically equivalent". I'm not sure
because the example given in the 14.1.1 doesn't exploit the possibility of
multiple values for the "target" attribute of the <ptr> element. The
<ptr id="P1" target ="P2"/> .... <ptr id="P2" target="P1"/>
<link targets="P1 P2"/>
However the Guidelines at this point in 14.1.1 are silent about the
possibility of <ptr id="W" target="P1 P2"/>
Any elucidation appreciated.