Back in the mists of time, in P1, and even also in P2, to be exact, the
TEI boasted an element called <ornament>. I quote:
Description: marks the position of a printers device, ornament or fig-
ure for example on a title page or elsewhere in a printed text.
desc: provides a brief description of the appearance of the orna-
Data type: CDATA
Value: A brief descriptive phrase
Default value: #IMPLIED
This attribute is optional.
<ornament desc='a donkey burdened with books'>
<s>DEFEROR IN VICVM</s>
<s>VENDENTEM THVS ET ODORES</s>
Remarks: Any text included in the ornament may be encoded as distinct
segments as content of the <ornament> element. The appearance of
the ornament itself (for example as a bit-mapped image) should be
encoded in the same way as other embedded images; see section 42,
"Formal Grammar for the TEI-Interchange-Format Subset of SGML,"
[in separate fascicle]
Part: base tag set for common core features.
Member of classes: tpParts
In P3 this element was removed, largely on the grounds that <figure>
would do the job just as well, though maybe the vagueness and inaccuracy
of the tagdoc quoted above didn't encourage anyone to keep it.
However, bibliographers are a tenacious bunch, and the revival of this
element has now been proposed in some quarters (you know who you
are).... so what do the People think?
Are printers ornament sufficiently interesting -- and crucially,
sufficiently different -- that they deserve an element of their own? Or
should P5 continue to insist that you represent them in your encoding by
means of a <graphic> or <figure> element?