Dear Godfried, dear all,
> You can look at this from two angles:
> 1) rubric in the meaning of "rubric proper", i.e. any text written in red
> ink, or
> 2) rubric in the meaning of "heading".
> Your definition tries to combines both points of view at the same time,
> which IMHO does not add to the clarity of what you are trying to achieve.
yes, you are right, I want to express *both* meanings. In German catalogues I
find parts of text wrapped with >...< and I have no clue whether this might be
a rubricated head (function: head, rend: red) or just a head (function: head,
rend: normal/displayscript) or just rubricated text (function: normal text,
rend: red). If I want cataloguers in the future to give some hints about what
they have seen in the manuscript, I would prefer the use of the attribute rend
in <rubric> to a <hi rend="rubric"> inside of <rubric>. Is that what you do
> So what I am saying is that if you take definition 1), the rend attribute
> in your definition becomes redundant, because only text copied in red is a
> rubric proper. In that case the TEI logic would seem to be rather to use
> the general <hi rend="rubric"> instead of a new element. If you take the
> view of definition 2), then the function attribute becomes redundant,
> because it should always be "rubric".
I slightly disagee with your usage of "rubric proper": there are portions of
text written in red or rubricated otherwise but without the meaning of a head.
Is that "rubric proper" in your sense? Cataloguers tend not to use rubric for
these passages. That is why I want the distinction of function and appearence.
And thus, I don't think, that in case of text having the function of a head,
the rend attribute (or hi) is redundant.
All the best, Torsten
Torsten Schassan (Projekt Handschriftendatenbank/MASTER)
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
Tel.: +49-5331-808-117, [log in to unmask]