On 13-04-17 12:22 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 16/04/2013 17:17, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> However, for me, a more common case is that a term is used multiple
>> times, and I have one gloss for it (usually in a separate document
>> with all the other glosses), and in that case, I would certainly give
>> the <gloss> an @xml:id, and point to it from each <term>.
> I'm curious to know if this happens in born-digital texts (where both
> term and gloss occur in the text), or do you use <gloss> for adding
> editorial clarifications to transcriptions of existing texts (where they
> don't occur in the source text)? I'm asking, since all examples
> seem to assume the presence of the gloss in the text, don't they?
Basically we don't have any good examples in the Guidelines of the
"reverse" behaviour (<term>s pointing to <gloss>es which are external to
the main text). We should. Once our new element for standoff markup
finds its way into the schema, an external gloss list might make a good
example for its documentation, and that would fill the gap.