Julia Flanders wrote:
> Because the text encoding world has focused so exclusively till now on
> high-percentage encoding, the tools (both technological and mental) are
> all clustered in that area. As a result I don't think we're yet in a
> good position to evaluate the usefulness of low-percentage encoding as a
> scholarly practice. However, I'm almost certain that once people who are
> interested in it start actually doing it, we'll see some useful outcomes.
Perhaps I was too quick in using the word 'pointless'. There are
occasions when I'd want to be more specific than the usual elements
allow. But in that case rather than encode semantic details in the text,
I'd try to devise a stand-off markup scheme to capture these. That would
make it easier to use one text with basic encoding as a basis for
research according to multiple points of view.
> It's also interesting that this approach should raise the possibility of
> guilt and obligation. One is surely never *obligated* to encode
> anything--it is only a question of whether one's encoding is well-suited
> to the intended purpose or not.
I know. It depends on the specifics of the project. But once you have
internalised the superiority of descriptive over procedural markup, you
need to assure yourself every once in a while you don't need to describe
every feature. At least I do.