Peter Flynn said:
> At 12:15 07/10/97 -0500, Lou wrote:
> >Undeterred by the resounding silence produced by my last set of
> >queries about nasty things you can't easily do with the current TEI
> >dtd, I write once more to ask if anyone out there has any ideas on
> >how to handle...
> I must have missed that set. For some odd reason I don't seem to get
> every message that gets posted on TEI-L.
> >A very common phenomenon in 17c English printed books (especially
> >pamphlets) is to give a lists in which great big curly braces are used
> >to group some of the items together and associate them with other
It seems to me that such lists are often an example of what we might
think of as a definition list, although there are multiple "term"s being
listed and only a single "def", which might wreak havoc with some folks'
idea of what a definition list is!
But I'd probably code these more or less like this:
<p>Amongst their diet are chiefly
which coding has various features/bugs, depending on your point of
view: it supplies the (usually) requisite "def" for each "term",
but doesn't give the sense of the three items as carefully
intertwined as the original probably does; it suggests more
parallelism than the original; and it complicates the overall
definition ("def.list" vs. "list").
I think Peter and Lee have it right -- the first question to ask
is "why am I coding this in the first place?" and then to
document the answer, so if somebody wants to disagree with your coding,
they can at least understand what it was you thought you were trying
Elaine M. Brennan [log in to unmask]
Tele: 303 766-1336 Fax: 303 699-8331
Senior SGML Analyst Home: 301 585-3554
Cell: 301 351-1386
Pager: 888 374-6757
Information Architects, Inc. http://www.sgml.com