I would say, definitely, yes: trailer is to head as explicit is to
implicit. The distinction is that one pair is quoted from a manuscript,
and the other appears in a printed text, usually with some distinctive
formatting (which is not necessarily the case for a manuscript)
By the way <closer> is definitely not the right answer: it's meant to be
used to wrap up a *group* of things appearing at the end of a div,
e.g. a signature, a trailer etc.
Martin Mueller wrote:
> I've seen <trailer> used for phrases like "The end", "finis" etc.
> But to the 'explicit liber tertius' corresponds not infrequently an
> 'incipit liber quartus', and ideally one would would want a
> symmetrical treatment for these phenomena. Would <head> then be the
> right thing for the 'incipit'?
> On Jan 19, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Dot Porter wrote:
>> We're encoding collections of canon law (both printed and manuscript),
>> and there are instances where at the very end of the collection (after
>> the final canon) there is an explicit: "Explicit Liber primus" for
>> example. We're wondering if it would be reasonable to mark this using
>> the <closer> tag, which according to the Guidelines "groups together
>> salutations, datelines, and similar phrases appearing as a final group
>> at the end of a division, especially of a letter." A collection of
>> canons obviously isn't a letter, but the explicit seems to be acting
>> as a closer for the collection. Thoughts?
>> Dot Porter (MA, MSLS) Metadata Manager
>> Digital Humanities Observatory (RIA), Pembroke House, 28-32 Upper
>> Pembroke Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
>> -- A Project of the Royal Irish Academy --
>> Phone: +353 1 234 2444 Fax: +353 1 234 2400
>> http://dho.ie Email: [log in to unmask]