On 25/12/12 10:57, Saeed Sarrafzadeh wrote:
> Hi all
> Again about the Lite documentation!
> I'd some problems with understanding some parts of the text there:
> 1) Where it describes the use cases for the <add>, <del> (and other elements designed for editorial intervention) it says that: "These elements are not limited to changes made by ***an editor***; they can also be used to record authorial changes in manuscripts. ...", although in the description of the <add> element we can see in the Note section: "The add element should not be used for additions made by editors or encoders ...". I couldn't interpret both together!
Ah yes. The prose part of the Lite tutorial probably still needs some
attention to reflect changes in the Guidelines. In this particular case,
versions of the Guidelines prior to P5 (and therefore Lite) were quite
open minded about whether <add>, <del> etc should be used to encode
changes of any origin, including them both for changes evident in a
manuscript, or changes which an editor might want to make, for example
to correct a reading or supply a missing passage. In later versions of
the Guidelines, the recommendation you quote was made, stating that (for
example) <add> shouldn't be used to record something not actually
present in a manuscript, largely because it was felt that (despite the
availability of the @resp attribute ) such additions were semantically
quite different, and a tag such as <supplied> would be a better way of
indicating this. The (implied) contradictory recommendation to use <add>
for this purpose was however left in Lite rather than adding more
elements to that schema. I suspect that most people actually ignore the
> 2) Where the document is trying to introduce the <interp> element, it discusses the practice of using the <seg> element with a proper type attribute for some interpretive cases and counts two restriction on it, which the first one is the requirement that all of the elements in the marked-up text to be properly nested. Then it stated that the <interp> element doesn't have such a restriction! I think that it's can be true with the <span> element (if you use <anchor> element to mark the start and end of the span) but it's not the case for <interp> element which you should use the <seg> element (or so) to mark the text and then pointing to <interp>. Am I right? Please let me know if there is another trick for that.
An <interp> can be pointed to from any element, not just a seg. A <span>
for example could be associated with one.
> 3) Again, where the document is discussing the <interp> element, it states that: "Moreover, interp is ***an empty*** element, which must be linked to the passage to which it applies ...". I couldn't understand what this means (the meaning of its emptyness).
This is another historical accident -- <interp> was an empty element
when Lite was written, but gained some content during the War on
Attributes. The point is that an <interp> can appear in the document at
any point without implying the presence of some content. But it's not a
very helpful comment, I agree.