Hiya! Long time no see.
While <fw> isn't necessarily wrong, it implies that the pilcrow
occurs at roughly the same spot on every page on which it appears. It
also says (at least to me) "this is an artifact of the printing
process, not a part of the intellectual content of the document". So
unless those are things you wish to assert, I'd shy away from <fw>.
Depending on where and how these pilcrows appear, possible encodings
* None. Stylesheet would generate a pilcrow if you were trying for
a very true-to-original typography output.
* Just type it in as another character.
* On the theory that the pilcrow is not part of the stream of
document content that is useful to transcribe and search, but
rather is a bit of presentational markup intended to help signal
that there is a new poem title coming up in a heading, encode it as
a renditional feature of either the <head> or of its parent.
<rendition xml:id="ppc">The division or line group is preceded
by a centered, 20-point high bold pilcrow (U+00B6).</rendition>
<!-- ... -->
<lg type="sonnet" rendition="#ppc">
<head>Sonnet 76: a Tribute to the Trombone</head>
<!-- ... -->
<head rend="pre(¶)">Sonnet 76: a Tribute to the Trombone</head>
Head titles in a book of poems are each preceded by a pilcrow (U
+00B6). I am inclined to use <fw/> but hesitate as to whether this
qualifies as "similar material," i.e., "a running head (e.g. a
header, footer), catchword, or similar material." Clearly this is
not header or footer material, but it is a repeated formal feature
of no semantic significance to the text it precedes, i.e., the poem
title within <head/>. How are others dealing with this (if you've