That might work for headed note paper, certainly.
On 08/10/14 22:46, Martin Holmes wrote:
> Do you think this sort of thing might qualify as forme work?
> On 14-10-08 02:19 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Good question! There's no <print> element in the current TEI Guidelines,
>> and I think it would need quite a bit of discussion before there was
>> My own thinking (which relates only to postcards -- I haven't had to
>> face the problem of headed notepaper)
>> is to regard all the information pre-printed on the card as being part
>> of a different entity, which I consider as the *source* for the object
>> I'm transcribing, which is the written postcard. So I would put details
>> like the name of the card publisher, and their address, any pre-printed
>> description etc. into a <bibl> inside the <sourceDesc>. But I am sure
>> there are other ways.
>> This doesn't help with the case where the post-card sender has
>> deliberately altered what is printed on the card for humorous or other
>> effect, of course. To deal with that you'd need to distinguish layers of
>> the writing on the card, as per genetic edition. Which would probably be
>> the most general (if also the most time consuming) solution
>> On 08/10/14 18:53, Andrew Jewell wrote:
>>> Dear colleagues:
>>> I'm working with a team to establish encoding practices for a new
>>> digital scholarly edition of the complete correspondence of the early
>>> twentieth-century American author Willa Cather, and I have a question
>>> I'm hoping the members of this SIG can help me with. We are searching
>>> for a good way to markup the letterhead, postcard captions, and other
>>> such pre-printed material that appears on many pieces of the
>>> correspondence. We feel this is important text that we want to
>>> transcribe, but we also think it needs to be marked as different than
>>> the individually-authored text on the correspondence. In surveying our
>>> options, the DALF element <print> emerged (see
>>> http://ctb.kantl.be/project/dalf/dalfdoc/DALFtextElements.html), and I
>>> wondered if there is an element within the current TEI guidelines that
>>> would function in a similar way (I have not come up with a satisfying
>>> alternative, but I may be overlooking something). Whenever possible,
>>> it is our preference to stay within existing TEI guidelines.
>>> Any advice or models you can provide would be much appreciated.
>>> Andy Jewell
>>> Andrew Jewell, Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor, University Libraries
>>> co-editor, /Scholarly Editing: The Annual of the Association for
>>> Documentary Editing/ (www.scholarlyediting.org
>>> Editor, /Willa Cather Archive/ (http://cather.unl.edu
>>> 203 Love Library
>>> University of Nebraska-Lincoln
>>> Lincoln, NE 68588
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>