On 05.04.2011 19:49, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 05/04/11 13:05, Matthias Einbrodt wrote:
>> <[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]>
>>> langUsage is about languages *within* the TEI document, but is used in
>>> the Header only
>>> xml:lang is about languages anywhere *within* the TEI document
>>> textLang is about languages in some text beyond (external to) the TEI
>> Yes they are, but so is also<title>. It can used either in the
>> TEI-Header or in the TEI-Body. And it can be used to denote the title
>> of a TEI-Document itself, the title of the source of the TEI-Document
>> or the title of a bibliographic reference etc. But it is always the
>> same element, since it's the context that matters in which it is
>> applied. For instance<title> within<analytic> refers to a journal
>> article while<title> in<monogr> refers to a book or journal title
>> and title within<sourceDesc> is used to denote the title of a
>> document external to the TEI-document.
> Howewer a "title" is arguably a textual object of some kind (as
> witness the fact that a title can also contain other titles), whereas
> "the language of this document" is not. So I don't think the analogy
> is all that helpful.
> When textLang was introduced, I remember there was some discussion
> about whether or not to use langUsage instead, and I think early
> versions of the Master schema did exactly that.
> If you have a transcription of a manuscript being described, then you
> would record its language usage in the langUsage element. But if you
> do not have a transcription -- just a msDesc -- then you would not.
> You might also use langUsage to record the languages in which a
> collection of manuscript descriptions were written. And those
> descriptions might appear in the header, or the text of a document
> (whereas, you will note, the definition of langUsage is that it
> relates only to the languages used in the non-header part of a TEI
> I think the workgroup felt that this was quite enough complication
> without making the meaning of langUsage even further context dependent
> as you seem to suggest.
Maybe that's just my personal taste, but for me it seems more
complicated not to make the meaning of langUsage further context
dependent and rather introduce a new element for a particular context.
But I'm also not sure If I completely understand the points you made above.
Is there a way to read the discussion about the introduction of
textLang? I tried to find it in the TEI-L as well as the designated
Lists of the Manuscript-SIG, but so far I had no success.
Best Regards, Matthias