Well, I *think* I understand the difference between <signed> and
<salute>, though I entirely agree with Paul that these elements have
been around a long time and consequently may have been induced to stray
from the straight and narrow by the temptations of hasty encoders
(insert brief excursus on the corruption of innocence here)
<salute> is for a phrase containing a salutation e.g. "To the Reader"
"Dear Sir" "Sincerely yours" etc.
<signed> is for a phrase containing a signature i.e. (necessarily) a
name of some sort, possibly prefixed by some kind of salutation.
It is common practice to wrap the combination of a salutation and a
signature within a <closer> when the combination appears as one of the
div-liminal bits of cruft at the end of a div: see many examples in the
Guidelines. Such examples (which Paul calls "group 2" below) far
outnumber the "group 1" case, where the <signed> is considered to
contain a salutation-like phrase combined with the signature itself, and
thus have a better right to be considered canonical I think. The Group
1s, where the two are presented as a single unit (e.g. "Your
affectionate son Binkie", or "thine to command, H Moseley") tagged with
just <signed> are rarer, and indicate (I suppose) a less nuanced
encoding. There is of course no reason why "thine to command" should not
be tagged as a <salute>, if it is regarded as sufficiently
"salutation-like" -- either within the <signature> or as a sibling to it.
On 08/09/10 14:56, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>> another detail: How differs<signed> from<salute>?
>> In the examples we have
>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>> <signed>Thine to command
>> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
> This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
> past, tried to make it one!<signed> and<salute> are two
> of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
> practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
> they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
> between them far from obvious --
> SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
> dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"
> SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
> dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
> salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."
> -- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
> groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
> establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
> arrive at a more exact and practical definition:
> Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
> above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of<signed>. Since
> this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
> the *quintessential* example of<signed>.
> <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
> <name>Robert Greene.</name>
> <signed>Thine to command<name>Humph. Moseley</name>
> Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
> phrases as part of<salute>; since these examples include the
> canonical example of<salute>, one might even suppose that
> they are the quintessential example of<salute>:
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
> <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
> <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
> One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
> in the latter group<signed> is wrapped in<closer>,
> whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
> see what difference that makes.
> In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
> and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
> the signatory as part of<signed>, and all phrases attached to
> the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
> etc.) as part of<salute>, and always place both within
> either<closer> or<opener>. So we would tag like this
> <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
> <signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
> or this
> <signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
> defender of the faith,&c.</signed>
> <salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
> [We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
> appear to suggest that<signed> belongs only at the close,
> and<salute> belongs in either the opener or the closer.
> For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
> or at end of a div, indifferently.]
> (Others do it differently.)
> Paul Schaffner | [log in to unmask] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
> 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190