Print

Print


Speaking for myself--which means somebody whose work is mostly in
medieval manuscripts though with forays into print--I'd say figure
covers the ground still. But perhaps others have better informed
opinions.

On Sun, 2007-11-03 at 18:44 +0000, Lou's Laptop wrote:
> 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?
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative <http://www.tei-c.org/>
Director, Digital Medievalist Project <http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/>
Associate Professor and Chair of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox: +1 403 329 2378
Fax: +1 403 382-7191
Homepage: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/