Print

Print


Hi Matthias,
That's a very good point you make here. Should not we think putting more coherence between our two language description tags? langUsage and textLang
Laurent

Le 4 avr. 2011 à 22:30, Matthias Einbrodt a écrit :

> On 04.04.2011 15:27, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> On 03/04/11 23:47, Matthias Einbrodt wrote:
>>> Dear List,
>>> 
>>> does anyone know how to properly encode the language of a bibliographic
>>> reference or better, the language of the document the reference
>>> points to?
>>> 
>>> Regardless of weather using<biblStruct>,<bibl>  or<biblFull>  there
>>> seems to be no genuine element for this task.
>> 
>> That's right. <bibl> and <biblStruct> are for traditional
>> bibliographic descriptions, in which the language of the work being
>> described does not usually figure, except perhaps as a note or a
>> comment on the title, especially if the work is a translation. As you
>> note, the language of the title can be specified, and thsat's usually
>> all a bibliographic description cares about.
>> 
>> However, for manuscript description, the TEI did find it useful to add
>> a new element <textLang> which I think specifies precisely what you
>> want. This element is available currently only in the <msItem> or
>> <msContents> element, but in principle it could also be made available
>> within <bibl>. If you think it would be useful, I suggest you make a
>> proposal to that effect on the sourceforge feature request tracker!
> Thank you for the hint. Until now, I didn't know this element. However,
> I have one remaining question. Doesn't <langUsage> has principally the
> same purpose as <textLang>? Both elements denote the languages that are
> used within a TEI-document. The only difference is, that <textLang> is
> used only for manuscripts while <langUsage> is used for an arbitrary
> document. So why having a separate <textLang> element for the
> manuscript-domain? Or am I missing something here?
> 
> Best Regards, Matthias

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
[log in to unmask]