Print

Print


+1 from me. In fact, this use (and that of the First Folio) were the 
main motivations for adding <ab> to the TEI!


On 08/11/13 12:08, James Cummings wrote:
> I'd definitely agree with Gabby (and Piotr) here. The canonical use 
> for <ab> is in my mind bible verses. They are not metrical lines, they 
> are not paragraphs. An 'anonymous block' is a good way to mark them.
>
> -James
>
> On 08/11/13 11:55, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>> I think Piotr early in the last thread suggested `<ab>`, which
>> doesn't have the semantic baggage of `<p>`. I use it for almost
>> all groupings of sub-div-level text.
>>
>> On 2013-11-08 11:53, Christian Chiarcos wrote:
>>> Yet another (and probably stupid) question:
>>>
>>> what would be the most appropriate markup up an original Bible
>>> verse:
>>>
>>> - <l>: In fact, it can be said to be a line of verse, but this
>>> is not
>>> verse in the poetic sense (as apparently presupposed in TEI).
>>> In poetic
>>> renderings of the bible, the two definitions of verse would clash.
>>> - <p>: In modern editions, Bible verses are often written within a
>>> single paragraph, but this is not systematically the case.
>>> - <seg type="verse">: This was used in the old CES scheme. No
>>> longer
>>> possible in TEI because <seg> is not allowed as a child of <div>
>>> anymore, and marking chapter-level divs as <p> would be even more
>>> unjustified than using <p> for verses.
>>> - <span type="verse">: In a way it can be said that assigning a
>>> verse id
>>> "associates an interpretative annotation directly with a span
>>> of text"
>>> but I'm a little bit in doubt whether this really qualifies as an
>>> "interpretative annotation".
>>>
>>> Both <l> and <p> are problematic, because the units under
>>> consideration
>>> are not directly grounded in text structure but in traditional
>>> verse
>>> numbering (regardless of how manifested in the respective
>>> edition).
>>>
>>> Right now, I'm inclined to work with span, because it would be an
>>> isomorphic mapping from the old CES specs, but I might have
>>> overlooked
>>> some more suitable alternative.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>> Christian
>>
>
>