Nested divs or milestones?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Nested divs or milestones?

Ian Scott

Hi folks,

 

I apologize for posting two questions in short succession. But I have another decision to make about migrating to TEI encoding and would be grateful for some input.

 

We have been considering using <milestone> elements to mark up all of the document structure (within the body) of our texts. This would have clear advantages when it comes to handling overlapping structures. But I notice that the TEI docs seem to presume that structured documents will use hierarchically nested elements like <div>. Our legacy markup is structured this way, but it’s because of overlapping issues that we’re considering moving completely to milestones.

 

What I’m wondering is whether there are TEI best practices that affect our decision here. Alongside our texts we’re working on some editing tools that we would like to be re-usable by other projects. So we don’t want to adopt a non-standard approach.

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Ian W. Scott, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada
www.ianwscott.com


Paul's Way of Knowing: Story Experience and the Spirit (Baker Academic [Mohr Siebeck], 2006)
The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha (SBL, 2006-; pseudepigrapha.org)

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Nested divs or milestones?

Hayim Lapin
Hello all, 
Here are my two cents in from a project that works with ancient hebrew mss, where the texts themselves have a canonical structure. Ian, I'm not sure this fits your need.
We made the decision to structure the files around the canonical structure (nested divs; I've just conceded to move from numbered divs to typed divs, but that's another story), for section, tractate, chapter, and ab for the canonical "verses."
Anything having to do with the writing of the text on the page is done with spans and anchors, with the exception of <fw> which we use to contain things like foliation marks, catchwords etc. 
At a preliminary stage of transcription we have <damage>, <add>, <del> etc. but for "production" our text is word-segmented, and these features can transgress word boundaries, so we convert them. 
For display this is usually not a problem. But there is a little bit of xpath/xslt/xquery surgery that needs to be done when you want to do more complicated things with corrections that have nested corrections, and other complex cases.  


Hope this helps,
Hayim

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Ian Scott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi folks,

 

I apologize for posting two questions in short succession. But I have another decision to make about migrating to TEI encoding and would be grateful for some input.

 

We have been considering using <milestone> elements to mark up all of the document structure (within the body) of our texts. This would have clear advantages when it comes to handling overlapping structures. But I notice that the TEI docs seem to presume that structured documents will use hierarchically nested elements like <div>. Our legacy markup is structured this way, but it’s because of overlapping issues that we’re considering moving completely to milestones.

 

What I’m wondering is whether there are TEI best practices that affect our decision here. Alongside our texts we’re working on some editing tools that we would like to be re-usable by other projects. So we don’t want to adopt a non-standard approach.

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

 

 

 

_____________________________________

Ian W. Scott, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Tyndale Seminary, Toronto, Canada
www.ianwscott.com


Paul's Way of Knowing: Story Experience and the Spirit (Baker Academic [Mohr Siebeck], 2006)
The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha (SBL, 2006-; pseudepigrapha.org)