Il 04/02/2014 17:21, Gerrit Brüning ha scritto:
> Dear all,
> Ulrike's and Matt's statements are further evidence that the currently
> very strict content model of <line> can not be maintained. The
> strictness only seems to stimulate a variety of workarounds.
I wouldn't oppose relaxing the content model of <line> a bit, following
the previous thread on the same subject, but wouldn't it be going too
far to have all the interpretative elements available inside <line>?
Because from what I see (and I am no expert wrt embedded transcription)
the accent is on the physical object layout ("words and other written
traces are encoded as subcomponents of elements representing the
physical surfaces carrying them rather than independently of them") and
therefore on the "physical hierarchy" of the physical object. If you had
available everything inside <line> you'd surely bump into hierarchy
problems as soon as you'd like to tag something spanning from one line
to the following one.
Which is why we have empty <lb/> elements in the <text>-based
transcription, which is where I'd look (well I actually did use it, in
fact :) if I'd feel way too limited by <line> and the whole
<sourceDoc>-based transcription method.
Just my 0.02€ :)
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco roberto.rossellidelturco at unito.it
Dipartimento di Studi rosselli at ling.unipi.it
Umanistici Then spoke the thunder DA
Universita' di Torino Datta: what have we given? (TSE)
Hige sceal the heardra, heorte the cenre,
mod sceal the mare, the ure maegen litlath. (Maldon 312-3)