I agree with Alexei (and maybe Lou) that the Guidelines are a bit
Part of the question is what the Guidelines mean by "contains
material which is marked as" ... what does "marked" mean? Must the
marking be explicit, or is an implicit marking (as by a grammatical
construction) sufficient? Or (surely not), it is the <q> element
itself that does the marking (in circular fashion, a q marks that
which it marks as somehow different from the surrounding text)?
On the other hand, I'm also sympathetic with Godfried's suggestion
that this can (should) be <quote>.
It's a matter of interpretation. As Alexei says, when the sword
"says" what is inscribed on it, is it being personified? Or does it
only "say" it the way my shopping list "says" I should buy cheese?
And <q> may be useful, in part, exactly for such soft cases.
Interesting markup problem. (I wrote about "soft" markup in my
Balisage 2009 paper.)
At 08:28 AM 7/28/2010, you wrote:
>Thank you ,Godfried and Lou, for your prompt answers!
>I have actually been misguided by the French word "ostensible" in
>understanding the Guidelines, but it should be noted that the
>definition in the element reference
>starts with a parenthesis mentioning the quotation marks:
>"<q> (separated from the surrounding text with quotation marks)
>contains material which is marked as (ostensibly) being somehow
>different than the surrounding text, for any one of a variety of
>reasons including, but not limited to: direct speech or thought,
>technical terms or jargon, authorial distance, quotations from
>elsewhere, and passages that are mentioned but not used."
>The point I was trying to make is that in my source manuscript the
>direct speech is not marked in any way as different from the
>surrounding text and using <q> for purely interpretative markup
>seemed to contradict the definition given in the current Guidelines
>(while it used to be perfectly legal in P4).
>I know that the definition was changed and the element <said>
>introduced in order to make things clearer but I am afraid the
>confusion is still possible. If <quote who="#Lou>The purpose of <q>
>is to be a more generic version of the more specialised tags such as
><quote>, <said>, <mentioned> etc. </quote>, this should be clearly
>stated in the Guidelines, I think.
>I thought of using <said> for the inscription on the sword, because:
>1) swords, stones, etc. in the Quest of the Holy Grail can be
>interpreted as "personages" just as human beings;
>2) the definition of <said> looks very much like that of "reported
>speech" in linguistics;
>3) the attributes @who (also available on <q>) and @direct (not
>available on <q> in P5) might be useful for further analysis.
><quote> does not have any of these attributes but I agree that <said
>type="written"> would be weird, so I withdraw my proposal.
>I would be very happy to use <q> for all kinds of direct speech (as
>I used to do in P4) but I just wanted to be sure this would not be a tag abuse.
Wendell Piez mailto:[log in to unmask]
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Direct Phone: 301/315-9635
Suite 207 Phone: 301/315-9631
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in SGML and XML