I have two thoughts. First is that this is a decision that has really
low impact, so don't fret it much. Second is that, in general, I
mostly agree with you and Lou: many things that can be marked either
<p> or <ab> in the teiHeader seem to me to be truly semantic
paragraphs, so I prefer <ab>. That said, there are cases (e.g.,
inside the <projectDesc> at the WWP) where the chunk of text is
clearly a semantic paragraph, so <p> is more appropriate.
But also (he said, no adding a third thought such that the first
sentence of this post is no longer true), do not mistake the _Best
Practices for TEI in Libraries_ for the entire _TEI Guidelines_. The
former clearly values consistency and simplicity over expressive
power and nuance; the latter is agnostic about how much expressivity
you should strive for, but tries to provide enough nuance that no
matter what your preference, there is enough.
> the Guidelines seem to allow both <p> and <ab> in elements of the
> teiHeader such as <editorialDecl>, <quotation> etc.
> In a couple of gitHub issues   there seems to be a preference
> for <p>. Those issues mention that in the future only <p> many be
> allowed in this context, although in  (find "lb42 commented on
> 11 Sep 2017") Lou Burnard disagreed on this. In any case, for the
> state being, both <p> and <ab> stay legal.
> Within he ALIM project  we are discussing the option of
> recommending our collaborators to only use <ab> because (I quote
> from Lou's comment in ): "It has always seemed to me that blocks
> of text in the header are not really paragraphs in the same way as
> paragraphs in the body of a text are" and to facilitate software