Print

Print


On Wed, 16 May 2007, John A. Walsh wrote:

> On May 16, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Peter Boot wrote:
>> I don't think it is a good idea, for three reasons:
>> * it should not be the business of document encoding to propose intended 
>> renditions (unless writing new documents). Renditions are decided at 
>> display time based on the characteristics of that context (user, medium, 
>> query, etc.);
>
> The Guidelines state very explicitly that rend is for describing the source, 
> not "intended rendition." This remains the case in P5 and in the proposed 
> change to rend.  It just so happens, however, that languages like CSS and 
> XSL-FO provide a formal mechanism that may be used for explicitly defining 
> styles that appear in the *source* document, especially for print sources, 
> though often usefully for manuscript sources as well.

True, but it is therefore important to preserve in TEI a means to 
preserve the HTML/CSS distinction between literal style instruction and 
indirect reference, in other words the difference between @class and 
@style on an HTML element. In our local tagging practice (and based on 
past TEI-L discussion, we're not alone in this), we use constructions 
like <hi rend="italic"> in parallel with constructions like
<hi rend="CSS(border-bottom: double; padding-left: 1em;)">. Under
the proposed system, it would be necessary to create a style definition
for each and every one of the latter constructions, which seems
thoroughly undesirable.

I would agree that this is such a large change that it's probably 
rushing things to aim at P5 for implementing it, in any case.

DS


-- 
David Sewell, Editorial and Technical Manager
Electronic Imprint, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 400318, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4318 USA
Courier: 310 Old Ivy Way, Suite 302, Charlottesville VA 22903
Email: [log in to unmask]   Tel: +1 434 924 9973
Web: http://www.ei.virginia.edu/