Print

Print


Back in the mists of time, in P1, and even also in P2,  to be exact, the 
TEI boasted an element called <ornament>.  I quote:

------------------
ORNAMENT

Description:  marks the position of a printers device, ornament or fig-
      ure for example on a title page or elsewhere in a printed text.
Attributes: 
      desc:  provides a brief description of the appearance of the orna-
            ment.
      Data type:  CDATA
      Value:  A brief descriptive phrase 
      Default value:  #IMPLIED
      This attribute is optional. 
Example: 
           <ornament desc='a donkey burdened with books'>
                   <s>DEFEROR IN VICVM</s>
                   <s>VENDENTEM THVS ET ODORES</s>
           </ornament> 
Remarks:  Any text included in the ornament may be encoded as distinct
      segments as content of the <ornament> element. The appearance of
      the ornament itself (for example as a bit-mapped image) should be
      encoded in the same way as other embedded images; see section 42,
      "Formal Grammar for the TEI-Interchange-Format Subset of SGML,"
      [in separate fascicle]
Part:  base tag set for common core features.
Member of classes:  tpParts
-----------------

In P3 this element was removed, largely on the grounds that <figure> 
would do the job just as well, though maybe the vagueness and inaccuracy 
of the tagdoc quoted above didn't encourage anyone to keep it.

However, bibliographers are a tenacious bunch, and the revival of this 
element has now been proposed in some quarters (you know who you 
are).... so what do the People think?
 
Are printers ornament sufficiently interesting -- and crucially, 
sufficiently different -- that they deserve an element of their own? Or 
should P5 continue to insist that you represent them in your encoding by 
means of a <graphic> or <figure> element?