A very common analagous situation arises when a *piece* of a work is
quoted in such a way as to reproduce its original structure, e.g.
for purposes of commentary or rebuttal or abuse. At least, I think
it is analagous, since unless someone can offer a better option,
a quoted (say) preface, or perhaps only the head or opener of the
preface, often seems best treated with <q><text><front>..., since only
this really represents its role, but the rest of the text is not there (or is
perhaps only quoted in a later chapter). Since half the books in
the seventeenth century reproduce chunks of the other half in order
to hold them up to derision, this sort of thing is depressingly
<p>Mr. Smith cannot seem to tell the truth even in his epistle of
<head>A Humble Submission.</head>
<byline>By John Jones, Esq;</byline>
<opener><salute>To the Lord Bishops of England, greeting.</salute>
<p>I have ever loved you, my lords</p>
since his name is not Jones, he is anything but humble, and "love"
is a strange word for his implacable enmity, as of darkness for
the sun. And then he heaps deceit upon mendacity by signing himself,
<dateline>Brasenose College, Oxon., <date>31 June 1645 novo
<signed>Your ever loyal servant, <name>J. Jones</name></signed>
since everyone knows he is a Cambridge man! (and June has only
We allow some things that canonical TEI doesn't, but even so, in such
circumstances, I have found myself driven to 'fake' things that aren't
there, e.g. an empty <p> to follow a quoted <head>, or an empty
<body> to follow a fragmentary <front>. In this case, <gap> doesn't
seem quite right. Or does it? What do you do?
Paul Schaffner | [log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1205
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Lou Burnard wrote:
> Seems to me that the only pure and honest way of dealing with this situation
> is to do something like
> <front>fragmentary front elements</front>
> <body><gap><desc>Only the front matter survives</desc></gap>
> If part of what you want to encode about a fragmentary title page is that it
> is in some sense "front matter" then putting it into the <body> simply isn't
> on. As Michael SpMcQ used to say "if there is a choice between an expedient
> lie and a difficult truth, always prefer truth". If it's "front matter",
> then there has to be something for it to be in front of -- and in a
> fragmentary manuscript, what it's in front of is a gap!
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Hilde Bøe wrote:
>> Thanks Brett,
>> this is clearly similar to our problem.
>> I think it would have helped (I would certainly have appreciated it) if
>> e.g. either the chapter on "Default Text Structure" or the chapter on
>> "Transcription of Primary Sources", could include a section on encoding
>> fragments, where the discussion included examples on fragments consisting
>> of only front and back matter. At present the TEI Guidelines does not
>> allow documents consisting of only <front> or <back> (and that's alright
>> with me), but moving front and back matter into the <body> isn't an easy
>> solution, as far as I can see.
>> All the best, Hilde
>> On Tue, January 30, 2007 18:54, Brett Barney wrote:
>>> On the Whitman project, we encountered a similar problem a couple of years
>>> back: We were encoding a manuscript title page with a list of possible
>>> titles. Unlike <castList>, <titlePage> can occur only within <back> or
>>> <front>, though. We ended up going down the first of the paths you chart,
>>> encoding the variant titles within <body> (in a <div> with a type
>>> attribute). Even though this was a few years back, I'm still not
>>> at ease with the issue: the first choice seems intuitively right from both
>>> a commonsense and a TEI-theory purist perspective, but the second choice
>>> has a pretty strong pragmatic appeal--it's easier to work with document
>>> components across a collection when they are marked up the same.
>>> Unfortunately, none of this does much to enlighten your particular
>>> conundrum, I'm afraid. But maybe it's useful as a related problem of
>>> manuscript encoding?
>>> Best regards,
>>> Brett Barney
>>> Walt Whitman Archive
>>> (402) 472-4547
>>> Hilde Bøe <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent by: "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list"
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 01/30/2007 09:11 AM
>>> Please respond to
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <castList> and <set> in <front> and <body>
>>> In the TEI P4 guidelines ("Default Text Structure") the overall structure
>>> of a unitary text is defined as including front, body and back.
>>> We've had a discussion on wether a document can consist of <front> only
>>> (although the encoding isn't valid unless one adds <body> inside <text>).
>>> The background for the discussion is a manuscript containing only a cast
>>> Some of us argue that the cast list ought to be encoded in <body> because
>>> it is the body of the text it represents:
>>> Others argue that since the cast list is usually interpreted as front
>>> matter, it should always be encoded within <front>. Encoding it within
>>> <front> makes it necessary to add <body>/<div>/<p> to get valid encoding:
>>> We would like to hear from others on the list who might have had similar
>>> problems. What have you done?
>>> Henrik Ibsen's cast lists nearly always include settings, and so does the
>>> one in the manuscript mentioned above. Alongside the choice between
>>> encoding <castList> within <front> or <body>, we have encountered a
>>> problem concerning the setting. Encoding a cast list in <front> lets the
>>> encoder use <set> for the setting (see 10.1.1 The Set Element in 10 Base
>>> Tag Set for Drama):
>>> <castList> can go nearly everywhere: <front>, <body>, all kinds of <div>s,
>>> <back> and so on. <set> on the other side is only allowed in <front> and
>>> <back>. Thus we can't use <set> when encoding the <castList> in <body>.
>>> <performance> is defined as "a section of front or back matter describing
>>> how a dramatic piece is to be performed in general", and could thus
>>> include the setting, had it not been that <performance> also is only
>>> allowed in <front> and <back>.
>>> We're therefore, it seems, left with the choice between <stage> and <p>,
>>> but neither of them seem to be more than an emergency solution since we
>>> can't use <set> (preferably) or <performance>.
>>> Our question is thus: what's the reason for this difference? If you can
>>> have a cast list in the body of a text (as some of us believe we have in
>>> one of Ibsen's manuscripts), why can't you have a setting as well? Are we
>>> forced to encode the setting in <back>?
>>> We are using P4 and are therefore not familiar with P5. Is the encoding of
>>> cast lists and settings changed in P5?
>>> On behalf of Henrik Ibsen's Writings, Hilde Bøe
>>> Hilde Bøe
>>> Ass. Editor
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> Henrik Ibsens skrifter, Postboks 1166 Blindern, 0316 OSLO
>>> Tlf. +47 228 591 52/fax +47 228 59 169
>>> URL: http://www.ibsen.uio.no/