On 01/06/11 11:49, Espen S. Ore wrote:
> I just discovered that<editoralDecl> does not have<note> as a legal
> content. And still to my surprise, so is the case for all the allowed
> content elements of editorialDec except for<p> and<ab>. Is there any
> reason for this?
> Obviously I can place a<p><note>blabla</note></p> group inside the
> editorialDecl where I need a note, but it isn't very clean.
I agree that it seems a bit odd on first glance. The content
model of editorialDecl is:
( model.pLike | model.editorialDeclPart )+
which like many teiHeader elements permits either unstructured
paragraphs or a series of more specific elements. In this case
the elements claiming membership of model.editorialDeclPart
which currently includes: correction, normalization, quotation,
hyphenation, segmentation, stdVals, and interpretation.
So, those are the things, at the moment, that the TEI seems to
think make up standard parts of a declaration "of editorial
principles and practices applied during the encoding of a text."
We might agree that they may have left some out and also that a
non-specific container like note might be a useful addition to
The current situation is that either you can use unstructured
paragraphs (in which case, isn't your note likely just to be
another paragraph?), or you can use some or all (and even repeat)
the model.editorialDeclPart elements. If you want to provide a
note inside any one of these you are currently forced to embed it
inside a paragraph or use an ab element, or treat the note like
another paragraph. What makes it a note rather than a paragraph
about one of these aspects?
Those workarounds aside, potential improvements in this area
- request a change to note to claim membership in
- request a change to all current members of
model.editorialDeclPart to allow alternating note and model.pLike.
The first of these looks promising to me, while the second seems
like it might be unnecessary.
My two pence,
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford