On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Lou Burnard wrote:
> I can see the attraction of using <label> rather than <note> where the
> function of the marginal note seems to be to label something rather than
> comment on it (though it's not a distinction I'd like to defend in a court of
> law). I cannot see any justification for using <argument> for these things
> though: an argument is supposed to summarise the whole of something, and be
> prefixed to it, like a table of contents.
I didn't understand how Martin was using <argument> either, to be
honest. Perhaps as suggested below under example 5? (i.e., where
we essentially *construct* an argument out of marginally dismembered
> Paul's milestones seem to me to be verging on the pathological.
Thank you, Lou. This is a comment to treasure!
Martin I am sure has his own examples, but here are a few
to clarify our (admittedly muddled) approach to marginalia.
Examples always help.
Our approach is (again admittedly) influenced in part by the
inability of our display system to render notes in a
reasonable way, perhaps biasing us against use of note in
marginal cases, so to speak, when other options are available.
For me the decision tree always forks first at the question:
is this thing in the margin best regarded as intrinsic or
extrinsic to the main text. If the latter, it is probably
a note (or milestone). If the former, one might wish to move it
formally *into* the text by tagging it as head, label, or even
Here are some examples, beginning with the pathological ones, and
ending, I think, with things more like Martin is actually asking about.
The marginal numbers here I would call extrinsic, marking
divisions in the text and indicating the text's progress
according to a standard reference system. We would definitely tag
these as <milestone>s (probably with @unit="verse"). They
represent progress through a very standard reference
system, indeed, viz., the verses of Psalm 90.
These we would also tag as <milestone>s (probably with
@unit="year"). They represent the text's progress through
the standard reference system of the calendar. (BTW, they
are *not* line or stanza numbers.)
We tend to leave a lot of these as <note>s, but in this case
I would feel free to interpret them as intrinsic to the main
text and tag them as labelling the paragraphs against which
<p><label>Of the Asse</label> The Asse denotes a good Servant
of Slave, that is profitable to his Master; it signifies also a
foolish and ignorant person.</p>
<p><label>Of the Mule.</label> The Mule signifies malice and
foolish imaginations. Artemidorus saith it signifieth sickness
to him that dreams he saw one.</p>
This is much like the previous example, and again I would feel
free to interpret the marginalia as somehow heading the accompanying
text, rather than standing outside it and commenting on it, and
therefore of being tagged as <label> (if the accompanying text is tagged
as <p>s); or as <head> (if the accompanying text is tagged as many small
<div><head>1. Full Armour.</head>
<p>ALL Souldiers comming to their Collours to watch or be
exercised, shall come fully Armed upon paine of severe correction.</p>
<p><label>1. Full Armour.</label> ALL Souldiers comming ...</p>
This example illustrates two different kinds of marginalia.
"Section 19." we chose to regard as a div heading. I.e.,
we began a new div @type="section" n="19" at the beginning
of that paragraph, and placed <head>Section 19.</head>
at its head. If we had *not* chosen to insert the div
break there, our free interpretation of <milestone>
would have encouraged, or at least allowed, us to tag it
as <milestone unit="section" n="19.">
But the remainder of the marginalia on the page is of a
different sort. It constitutes in toto a running
summary of the argument, an outline complete with
numbered points and subpoints. And breaking it up
into separate <note>s does it a disservice (unless
you use TEI mechanisms to string the notes together),
since otherwise you are left with individual notes
that are meaningless
<note place="marg">And by renewing vs.</note>
In cases like this we sometimes -- very rarely --
choose, in violence to the source, to gather all the
related marginalia for a given section into a single
continuous <argument> and place it at the beginning
of the div.
<argument><p> 1 ... 2 God's spirit shewes it selfe
an holy Spirit, in begeting good motions. And by
renewing vs. ... 3 ... </p></argument>
This example also has two different kinds of marginalia.
"Deut. 28." and "1 Cor. 11.29." are standard bibliographic
notes, tagged as <note place="marg">.
"Sicknesse from God." and "Sicknesse through sin." are marginal
summaries, similar in some ways to examples 3, 4, and 5. They
stand on their own, so they certainly do not require the radical
<argument> treatment.In truth, we would probably leave these as notes,
placed at the beginning of their respective paragraphs. If
we were ambitious we might try to distinguish them from the
other notes by @typing them distinctively.
But they are also close enough to the examples that
we chose to regard as <label>s intrinsic to the
main text that we could rationalize tagging these as
<label>s too, in effect moving them into the text
and out of the margin.
<p><label>Sicknesse from God.</label> Whether then sicknesse
doe fasten on vs, through an externall bad ayre, or some
internall distemper of blood ... </p>