Thank you all for your responses. So, I've ruled out <seg> because the 
chunks are too large for it, and ruled out too a sub- <div> because 
there are often paragraphs between definitions that are not definitions 
themselves and should not be marked, therefore giving a non-tessellated 

These are the alternatives as suggested by you:

–-Lou's <quote> suggestion would be ideal if it weren't that these 
chunks often include quotations (the stanza in this example), but they 
are not the quotation. Quotation is not automatically given in every 
case; sometimes the author himself makes up the stanza with which he 
exemplifies his definition. Sometimes he doesn't even give an example. 
In any case, marking the sources (quotation or not) is not yet my aim, 
not in this phase of my work; just the classifying of different medieval 
definitions (which is giving me enough pain as it is ;)).

–-As to <ab> (thanks, Paul and Fabio), it would be perfect (marked with 
the @ana attribute), if it weren't for the tessellating aspect of it. 
Unless <ab> doesn't need tessellating? (Wishful thinking :)) But would 
at least be possible a tessellation of <ab>s in which some of them have 
@ana and others no attribute?

---The same with <div>: I could go and sub-<div> all fragments inside a 
<div>. But again, some of these sub- <div>s would have the @ana 
attribute, and others not. Is that acceptable?

–-Peter's suggestion of going for a <p ana= “#C3”> would be the most 
tempting: simple, clean, with the <p>s ensuring tessellation. But again:

1) Can a <p> element enclose a chunk of text longer than what we would 
consider a 'natural' paragraph? (As, in my example, one <p> enclosing a 
passage in prose *and* one in verse? Some definitions can run even 

2) Can I use within the same <div> some <p>s with @ana, and others 
without it?

As you see, I'm totally ignorant of the systematicity rule of use of 
attributes within a given element. Sorry.

So here you have again my example, this time with the <p> option: a 
division with three paragraphs, of which only the second one is marked 
with the @ana attribute (thanks, Sebastian; in my haste I had forgotten 
to mark up my first <p>!). Would this be acceptable?:

<div n= “1”> <p>Bla bla bla … bla bla</p>
<p ana= “#C3”>DELS RIMS UTRISSONANS. Rim utrissonan son dig can la 
vocals muda lo significat de la dictio. mudan lo so plenissonan. en so. 
semissonan. o pel contrari. segon. quom pot ayssi vezer.
<l>Sias tempratz e gent apres. </l>
<l>En tas paraulas et apres. </l>
<l>Si fas de compas e de pes. </l>
<l>Sas obras remandran enpes.</l>
<p>Bla bla bla</p></div>

If none of this is valid, I might have to think of stand-off markup, as 
suggested by Sebastian –but must I really? :( .

Thanks again, Gabby, Paul, Sebastian, Peter, Fabio, Lou.


Prof. Rosanna Cantavella
Universitat de València / Clare Hall, University of Cambridge

> I was assuming that the text would be completely divided in sub-div. 
In the
> end in this case I would even force the tessalation adding ad hoc div,
> after all they are editorial divs, syntactic tools used by the encoder 
> annotate the text, not to describe a structure intrinsic to the text
> itself.
> f