On 13-04-17 06:18 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> On 17/04/2013 14:36, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> 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.
> Sounds exciting! But I'm still confused: is <gloss> meant only for
> identifying glosses that are present in a source text (which is how I
> understand its definition in the guidelines), or also for providing
> explanations added by an editor (which is how I understand your use
> described in this thread)? Or is your proposed stand-off approach a way
> to accomplish the latter?
The definition of <gloss> is:
" identifies a phrase or word used to provide a gloss or definition for
some other word or phrase."
It doesn't say anything about its being in the source text or not. I've
always assumed that you can put a gloss wherever you need to. You can
use it to identify a word or phrase in the source text that is
functioning as a gloss, or you can use it to specify a gloss in your
editorial annotations or in a standoff markup structure.
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])