I don’t think so. I think of <argument> as a summary of what follows. A Gnomon article might have the following sequence of paragraphs, where upper and lower case distinguish the different types:
I’m sure I’ve seen this elsewhere. The author sends the signal: “you can skip this paragraph, but it’s part of a continuous argument.” You could of course encode it, using @rend or @rendition. But a @type attribute might be a better way of articulating this discursive structure, and you could derive particular layout instructions from the structural encoding.
On 4/12/17, 12:07 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
This rather sounds like it might be a job for <argument>:
On 2017-04-12 11:04 AM, Martin Mueller wrote:
> I just stumbled an earlier thread about a @type attribute for <p> , and
> there was a question about use cases. Here is one I can think of right
> away. In the days long ago, when I regularly thumbed the Classics review
> journal Gnomon, I always appreciated reviews that had a main argument in
> larger type and subsidiary stuff in smaller type. So you could read the
> whole thing or skip the fine print. You could model the fine print
> stuff as inline notes, but I think of notes as bits of text that sit
> explicitly outside the text stream, while the alternation of paragraphs
> in Gnomon stays within a sequential reading order.