Print

Print


I work with printed material, with lots of ornaments, but see no need 
for such an element.

Peter

Dan O'Donnell wrote:
> 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?