On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 06:51 +0800, Brett Zamir wrote:
> I was wondering whether it would be semantically correct to use <g> to
> represent an actual Unicode character (not a variant thereof) within a
> UTF-8 document but which is not yet well-supported in some viewing
> environments (but so as to preserve the information for automated
> conversion in environments which can support it)?
> I ask this since our use would not technically be for the allowance made
> with <g> for "Unicode characters not available in the document encoding"
> (per http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/WD.html ),
> since our document encoding would still be UTF-8. The mechanisms of <g>
> seem to allow for an easy, excellent and thorough sdocumentation of
> this, but I didn't know if this usage would be consistent with the
> semantics of <g> since I didn't see an allowance for this case...
If your TEI document can contain the character directly and natively,
then <g> is superfluous. What would you expect to gain from using <g>?
I guess it's fairly harmless to change your TEI encoding to suit these
particular viewers, though frankly I'd consider it less than ideal and a
bit of a kludge - have you considered pre-processing your TEI before it
is rendered through those particular viewing environments? Or patching
those viewing environments in some other way?
New Zealand Electronic Text Centre