On 05/02/14 15:30, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I’d stand by
> my comment, that the surface/zone system was devised for genetic
> editions (as its history shows), and is highly suited to that
Just to correct the notion of history here: the surface and zone
elements were introduced primarily for the facsimile element
adding in TEI P5 version 1.0.0.
The sourceDoc element, which then used (and caused expansions to
the content model of) these elements wasn't introduced until
In fact, it was partly because of the mass of genetic editing
editions (<mod>, <metamark> etc.) that we went from 1.9.0 to
2.0.0 instead of 1.10.0 as a version number.
If people wish to mark coordinates of textual transcriptions but
are doing interpretative transcriptions then they should be using
the facsimile/surface/zone system and the global @facs attribute.
That is what it was invented for more than 4 years before the
genetic editing was incorporated into a release of the Guidelines.
>That is not to deny that surface/zone are “only” useful
> in encoding genetic editions — just that using them in (say)
> transcriptions of Canterbury Tales manuscripts would mean that
> significant aspects of the text as communicative act could not be
> encoded within that transcription.
But again, you don't need to use them only in sourceDoc, you can
use them in facsimile to associate zones with interpretative
textual transcriptions down in text. So I'm still unconvinced
that you couldn't do what you want. (I've more sympathy with the
desire for something like names inside sourceDoc... but I'd
probably do that by marking them as <seg> and using out-of-line
markup to point to the @xml:id of that seg and say it was a name,
but I'm weird like that.)
Dr James Cummings, [log in to unmask]
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford