Jumping up a level here (this has nothing to do directly with notes):
At 08:01 PM 5/12/2005, Syd wrote:
> > ... but for editorial reasons we are keen to keep the content of
> > our document limited to the content of our source manuscript.
>Although I adhered to this doctrine for many years, and do find it
>quite comforting, I'm afraid it's soon to be a thing of the past. In
>(unextended) P5 it will be all but impossible to apply consistently.
>In which case, you may want to let go of it now, while you can still
>proudly say you weren't dumped, it was *your* decision to leave the
>doctrine. (I'm imagining the final scenes to _Annie_Hall_ as I write
This is very interesting advice, but it leaves some questions unaddressed.
For example, was the doctrine just no good from the start? (Too simple, a
doctrine suited only for a foolish, brash and callow youth?) Or have we
just outgrown it? Has it failed to meet our demands for what a doctrine
worthy of our trust and fidelity should offer us?
I know there are a range of arguments for why the doctrine may not be
tenable, or even if it is in some circumstances, why it should not be
rigorously upheld in TEI. What I'm wondering about is what principled
discrimination we can make that both helps us know when this doctrine can
be held to, and when it is best not even bothered with. Ideally that
principled discrimination would be based in real-world practice, but be
expressed in some form possible to apply to new situations.
For example, in this case I don't see what requirement for keeping the main
source document free of material not "in" the original source (at least wrt
element content outside the header) could not be addressed by old-fashioned
out-of-line notes. Whether they be linked in from a separate file or
wherever, this architecture is tried and true, scales well, and is
perfectly appropriate in many situations. If this is the case, I don't see
why we can't continue to adhere more or less happily (and more or less
faithfully) to the old doctrine, or at least allow Dot to, without taking
this case as being an exception to it.
Mind you, I write as someone who works on the other side of the fence: most
of the data I deal with is marked up prospectively, not retrospectively.
The issue of keeping a document "pure" in some way with respect to its
"source" (even when that category is relatively unfraught: variorum
edition, anyone?) only comes up in a big way with retrospective markup;
what Dot describes is a mix. Since TEI already provides for notes to be in-
or out-of-line, the interesting question is whether this particular mix is
best handled by layering in some way, or just allowed to ... mix. (At this
point I start singing "it depends, it depends, it depends on the
Wendell Piez mailto:[log in to unmask]
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML