On 27/01/13 18:54, Frédéric Glorieux wrote:
> Alexei, you are of course right, it's not a textual paragraph, but it
> will not break other linguistic process, because asterisk will never
> been understood as a word, and could be treated like punctuation.
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 B*****.
> About milestones for "couillards", I'm not agree. My understanding of
> milestones is the covering of the text with a sectioning scheme
> incompatible with the logical tree, like pages <pb/>, or thematic
> analysis. "couillards" are always compatible with the paragraphs flow,
> and the sections.
In that case, they are just trailers of some kind.
> Lou, in case of printed books, at least till Didot in France, there are
> very few ornaments.
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.
French people dreamed themselves as cartesians and
> used to believe that such graphical marks are useful to understand the
> text. Encoding that like a graphic is tag abuse.
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
<div> should be desired, but it means scientific re-edition of the text,
> by some one allowed to decide that a "couillard" is a real section
> marker. The proof of a section is a title. If an editor is able to
> entitle a section between two "couillards", then it is a logical
> division. But if we have not enough TEI speakers among our editors ? If
> it is false ? We should keep an encoding solution for the last
You can have a <div> with no <head> though.
And yes, I think <ab> or <seg> would be better than <p>