I've been meaning to look at this question for a while. Does this mean
that what we are currently doing in P4 with <mark/> we can now do in P5
using <g>, without abusing the element in any way?
That is to say: the only information we record about the "mark" on the
stone is (i) that it is there, on a line, in the same context as an
alphabetic character could be; and (ii) a short description--usually a
single word--of the mark that can be displayed or, I suppose, searched
in some way (e.g. "scroll", "leaf", "arabesque", "dolphin"). We do *not*
include any kind of link to a standard table, a unicode codepoint, a
URL, a graphic, or any other external information. If that's legal, then
it looks like our problem is solved once we upgrade to P5...
Lou Burnard a écrit :
> This seems strikingly similar to the <g> element introduced in TEI P5.
> Tom Elliott wrote:
>> I wonder if it's relevant to this discussion how epidoc is trying to
>> handle "a mark in the original text that is not readily handled by
>> conventional type or fonts (e.g., does not correspond to a Unicode
>> code point) but is not really an illustration."
>> An empty extension element with a "type" attribute, e.g.:
>> <mark type="claudian_ps" />
>> Tom Elliott, Ph.D.
>> Director, Pleiades Project
>> Ancient World Mapping Center
>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Epigrapher, Digital Classicist)
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
7, Arundel Street
London WC2R 3DX
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980