[SOLVED] (at least for me, but discussion is still interesting)
> And yes, I think <ab> or <seg> would be better than <p>
So inside <div> at block level <ab type="couillard">…</ab> (or some
other better international name), and let @rend for rendering precision.
> Are you sure an asterisk is never treated as a linguistic object? I
> think you may be f****** wrong. And so does my friend the Marquis of
Right, we should keep such case in mind for linguistic automatas.
> In that case, they are just trailers of some kind.
<trailer> ? The notion seems evident for you, I will ask around me to
understand it in french.
> I was using the word in the typographic sense -- a thing which was
> probably set using a predefined block, rather than using alphabetic
> type. I think that would include quite a few of your couillards.
> Why do you say that? A <graphic> is as much part of the text as anything
> else, surely? One advantage of using <graphic> is that you can then
> include something which really looks like the couillard in question,
> rather than being an encoded approximation of it -- e.g. the tildes and
> three-dot signs.
I'm not agree here. Those "couillards" are like our smileys, only done
with the chars in the font box. It It's is not specific engraved bars,
like "cul de lampe",
> You can have a <div> with no <head> though.
TEI allow it, but reason can say that a section may always have a title
(even a forged one, like I, II, III), but if it can't have such title,
like a page for example, then perhaps it's not a section. We need such
idiot rules to separate roles. It's the role of a scientific editor to
decide if "couillards" define logical sections.