div and p

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

div and p

Burghart Marjorie
Dear all,

I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.

Best regards,
Marjorie
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.

When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual structure
was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a
book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in
chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have
some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1.  But in conventional Western
typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3 (say)
ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some paragraphs
belonging to chapter 4.  An explicit or other closing, maybe.  But not paragraphs
of normal text.

One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional Western
typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the
beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did want to
have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put to
it to figure out how to get the idea across.  (This assumes that you were able
to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.)

Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what he
argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still claim now)
never to have seen.  But his example was also interpretable as a labeled list
in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs.  There was text after
the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part of the last
labeled item.  But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid paragraphs
after lists.

If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section / subsection
style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling.  Which makes
me curious:  what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to want
paragraphs after the last subordinate div?  (Would ab do the trick?)

I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as
sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question.

 

********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Lou Burnard-6
I don't know whether it was the example that Dominic gave you, but the
usual counter example might be something like
the structure of say Chaucer's Canterbury Tales or the Decameron, where
you have a bunch of distinct stories floating about in a framing narrative.
Something like

<div n="1">
"Tell us a story mate"
"OK."
<div n="1.1">
<p>It was a dark and stormy night...</p>
</div>
"That was a rubbish story. Give us a better one!"
<div n="1.2">
<p>Once upon a time there were three little encoders called Vesta,
Nesta, and Tilly...
</p>
</div>
"Much better!"
</div>

The common existence of this sort of thing may be why we (reluctantly in
my case) introduced <floatingText>, I think.
However in typographic practice, as you rightly say, the bits of framing
commentary are nearly always rolled into one or other of the framed
texts, with consequently painful editorial decisions as to whether (in
my silly example) "That was ... one!" should be considered as the
epilogue to the first story, or the prologue of the second. Which it is
clearly both.

On 12/01/17 00:13, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

>> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.
> When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual structure
> was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a
> book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in
> chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have
> some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1.  But in conventional Western
> typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3 (say)
> ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some paragraphs
> belonging to chapter 4.  An explicit or other closing, maybe.  But not paragraphs
> of normal text.
>
> One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional Western
> typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the
> beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did want to
> have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put to
> it to figure out how to get the idea across.  (This assumes that you were able
> to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.)
>
> Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what he
> argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still claim now)
> never to have seen.  But his example was also interpretable as a labeled list
> in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs.  There was text after
> the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part of the last
> labeled item.  But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid paragraphs
> after lists.
>
> If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section / subsection
> style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling.  Which makes
> me curious:  what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to want
> paragraphs after the last subordinate div?  (Would ab do the trick?)
>
> I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as
> sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question.
>
>  
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Burghart Marjorie
In reply to this post by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Thanks, it is indeed a very clear answer to my question.

I am a little confused, though, by the idea that, within section 4, section 4.1 may be preceded by some loose paragraphs not belonging to it, while section 4.3 could not be followed by the same loose paragraph(s). In my understanding, it's a fairly common practice: the paragraphs at the beginning serve as a sort of introduction or captatio benevolentiae for the whole of section 4, and the final paragraphs at the end serve as a sort of conclusion to the entire section 4, and what we would call in French a "transition" to section 5.

I'm assuming that you are going to object that, if the last paragraph of section 4 is a conclusion I should just wrap it in a <div xml:id="conclusion_4">. Fair enough, but then, why am I forced to do that for the conclusion, while I have the choice to leave the introduction as a loose paragraph?

I'll add that I am annoyed by this rule because I'm currently writing several chapters using the jTEI schema (requirement from the editor), and in this schema a <div> MUST have a <head>. Normally, I would wrap my final, conclusive/transitive paragraph in a <div> (just because of the rule described above) and I wouldn't think about it anymore, but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title - that would be against all conventions of Western typography.  

Best regards,
Marjorie



----- Mail original -----
De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 01:13:06
Objet: Re: div and p


> On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.

When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual structure
was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a
book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in
chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have
some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1.  But in conventional Western
typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3 (say)
ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some paragraphs
belonging to chapter 4.  An explicit or other closing, maybe.  But not paragraphs
of normal text.

One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional Western
typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the
beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did want to
have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put to
it to figure out how to get the idea across.  (This assumes that you were able
to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.)

Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what he
argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still claim now)
never to have seen.  But his example was also interpretable as a labeled list
in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs.  There was text after
the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part of the last
labeled item.  But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid paragraphs
after lists.

If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section / subsection
style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling.  Which makes
me curious:  what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to want
paragraphs after the last subordinate div?  (Would ab do the trick?)

I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as
sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question.

 

********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Paul Schaffner
Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
div,p are quite common in the wild. The possible strategies (some
of which in some cases amounted to kludges) were, as I instructed
the editors, basically four:

1. wrap the concluding bits in a semi-artificial div, without heading,
e.g. div type="conclusion" or type="envoi" etc.

   <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="conclusion"><p/><p/>...</>
   </div>
     

2. wrap the bulk of the containing div -- the divved chunk in the
middle -- in a floatingText element and leave the paragraphs before
and after it as loose p elements

    <div type="chapter>
    <p>
    <p>
    <floatingText type="body_of_chapter">
       <body>
       <div type="section"><head>...</>
       <div type="section"><head>...</>
       </body>
     </floatingText>
     <p>
     <p>
     </div>

(In some cases you can substitute one of the other
almost-floating-text elements such as list, table,
q, quote, or figure)

3. squeeze the concluding bits of the div into one of the
more generous div-liminal tags, e.g. argument, closer,
or (our local custom element) tailnote.

  <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <argument>
          <p>
          <p>
      </argument>
   </div>
     
4. Put the concluding paragraphs into a sibling div and
type it appropriately

  <div type="chapter">
      <p>
      <p>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
      <div type="section"><head>...</>
   </div>
   <div type="chapter_appendix">
          <p>
          <p>
   </div>


pfs

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017, at 19:32, Marjorie Burghart wrote:

> Thanks, it is indeed a very clear answer to my question.
>
> I am a little confused, though, by the idea that, within section 4,
> section 4.1 may be preceded by some loose paragraphs not belonging to it,
> while section 4.3 could not be followed by the same loose paragraph(s).
> In my understanding, it's a fairly common practice: the paragraphs at the
> beginning serve as a sort of introduction or captatio benevolentiae for
> the whole of section 4, and the final paragraphs at the end serve as a
> sort of conclusion to the entire section 4, and what we would call in
> French a "transition" to section 5.
>
> I'm assuming that you are going to object that, if the last paragraph of
> section 4 is a conclusion I should just wrap it in a <div
> xml:id="conclusion_4">. Fair enough, but then, why am I forced to do that
> for the conclusion, while I have the choice to leave the introduction as
> a loose paragraph?
>
> I'll add that I am annoyed by this rule because I'm currently writing
> several chapters using the jTEI schema (requirement from the editor), and
> in this schema a <div> MUST have a <head>. Normally, I would wrap my
> final, conclusive/transitive paragraph in a <div> (just because of the
> rule described above) and I wouldn't think about it anymore, but I REALLY
> do not want my little paragraph to have a title - that would be against
> all conventions of Western typography.  
>
> Best regards,
> Marjorie
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
> À: "Marjorie Burghart" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>,
> [hidden email]
> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 01:13:06
> Objet: Re: div and p
>
>
> > On Jan 11, 2017, at 5:01 PM, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I was wondering: is there a sensible reason why a <p> may occur before a series of <div>s, but not after? I can't make sense of this rule.
>
> When P1 was developed, our understanding of conventional textual
> structure
> was (and in my case remains) that one can and frequently does have, in a
> book with chapters, sections, and subsections, some paragraphs of text in
> chapter 4 before the beginning of section 4.1, and likewise one may have
> some paragraphs in 4.1 before subsection 4.1.1.  But in conventional
> Western
> typography I do not believe I have ever seen a book in which section 4.3
> (say)
> ended, was not followed by a section 4.4, but WAS followed by some
> paragraphs
> belonging to chapter 4.  An explicit or other closing, maybe.  But not
> paragraphs
> of normal text.
>
> One reason for this is the straightforward one that in conventional
> Western
> typography the ending of any section is typically signaled only by the
> beginning of the next section of equal or higher rank — so if you did
> want to
> have the structure described above, your book designer might be hard put
> to
> it to figure out how to get the idea across.  (This assumes that you were
> able
> to get the idea across to the book designer in the first place.)
>
> Dominic Dunlop of the British National Corpus once presented me with what
> he
> argued was an example of the structure which I claimed then (and still
> claim now)
> never to have seen.  But his example was also interpretable as a labeled
> list
> in which each item had a label and a few paragraphs.  There was text
> after
> the last labeled item which was neither a further labeled item nor part
> of the last
> labeled item.  But the default TEI document grammar didn’t forbid
> paragraphs
> after lists.
>
> If one is using divs for units other than conventional chapter / section
> / subsection
> style parts of a text, the logic just given may be less compelling.
> Which makes
> me curious:  what are you thinking of doing with divs that leads you to
> want
> paragraphs after the last subordinate div?  (Would ab do the trick?)
>
> I will leave to your judgement whether the reasons that moved us count as
> sensible, but hope either way to have answered your question.
>
>  
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Library Production Service
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> div,p are quite common in the wild.

Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
common”.  

Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?  
Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
common” mean, quantitatively?

And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
of a new subdivision of its own?


********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

James Cummings-4
On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
> of a new subdivision of its own?

I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion.  None of
the examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional
sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division
(also maybe without a head).  In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque
example I would say that a that the prologue and comments after
are both separate sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a
division consisting of 3 child divs.

In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra
concluding paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but
that she doesn't want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's
examples I would choose solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I
thought they were a concluding subdivision (sans heading) or a
separate section (sans heading).

There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and
divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but
the content of it.  I don't necessarily see a direct relationship
between an intellectual division and the format of how something
originally appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side
of a pot.

-James

--
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Martin Holmes
On 2017-01-12 07:45 AM, James Cummings wrote:

> In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding
> paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't
> want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's examples I would choose
> solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding
> subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading).

This is a requirement imposed by this Schematron rule in the jTEI schema:

<constraintSpec ident="jtei.sch-div-head" scheme="isoschematron">
               <constraint>
                 <sch:rule context="tei:div[not(@type =
('editorialIntroduction', 'bibliography', 'abstract',
'acknowledgements'))]">
                   <sch:assert test="tei:head">
                     A <sch:name/> must contain a head.
                   </sch:assert>
                 </sch:rule>
               </constraint>
             </constraintSpec>

As you can see, we require a head element for any div which doesn't fall
into a number of specific categories. Those types of div perform
specific roles in the article structure. Our assumption when creating
the schema was that the body of an academic article would conform to the
relatively conventional structure that Michael outlined, and all the
articles so far have, but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to
change it. There are implications for processing into ODT and PDF, as
well as ingestion into the revues.org system.

Marjorie, could you raise a ticket for this on GitHub:

<https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues>

with [jTEI] in the title, and if possible provide us with a simple
outline of the structure you need?

Since it'll take time to add the required support to the processing
pathways, is there a way you can get around this temporarily that won't
be too annoying?

Cheers,
Martin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Burghart Marjorie
In reply to this post by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Hello!

How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space before the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a name?), or sometimes nothing particular.

@James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is that I have to...

@Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make it more evident.



----- Mail original -----
De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
À: [hidden email]
Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00
Objet: Re: div and p

> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> div,p are quite common in the wild.

Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
common”.  

Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?  
Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
common” mean, quantitatively?

And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
of a new subdivision of its own?


********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Piotr Banski
In reply to this post by James Cummings-4
Hi James and all,

Been watching this conversation as a more-or-less outsider to the topic,
but now I can't help but wonder: are you guys talking about some
universal property of text, which, one would think, is a creation of the
amazing human mind, capable of calculating the changing distance between
stars and counting angels spinning on the tip of a boson, and, at the
same time -- you seem to be saying -- incapable of conceiving a textual
structure where a few well-rounded sections are bracketed with several
paragraphs on both ends? Old Plato sends you his love, I'm sure, but
we've been through postmodernism and are out of his cave by now... ;-)

Legacy is legacy, and a glorified kludge is still a kludge, so let's not
pretend 80/20 % is 100/0... 80/20 is often enough of a reason to shut
one's eyes and swallow the pill, for the good of the system.

(And if 80/20 is not enough of a reason, then shrug and edit the ODD...
Seriously: at this point, the ODD becomes an interpretive manifesto,
potentially much stronger and far-reaching than a single e-mail thread.)

I recall the momentary feeling of terror that I experienced at the most
recent TEI-MM when someone in all seriousness mentioned OHCO as an axiom
of their current theorising (it was almost as strong as my dismay two
years ago in Lyon, when I heard someone citing a 30-year-old example of
overlapping <s> and <q> as a new discovery -- but I digress). Without
the old observations and the simple(r) theories/models formulated years
ago, we wouldn't be now where we are -- because simplification +
iterative tinkering is the right strategy to deal with complexity -- but
why claim that there is anything universal about them. I'm not arguing
that the content model of div should necessarily get loosened, but let's
recognize it for what it is, an 80/20 strategy, which in this case is
possibly also roughly 90 % intellectual and 10 % pragmatic, and it's
good that Paul teaches and discusses kludges, that's the pragmatic way
to deal with the issue.

Best regards,

   Piotr



On 01/12/2017 04:45 PM, James Cummings wrote:

> On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
>> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
>> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
>> of a new subdivision of its own?
>
> I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion.  None of the
> examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional
> sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division (also
> maybe without a head).  In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque example I would
> say that a that the prologue and comments after are both separate
> sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a division consisting of 3
> child divs.
>
> In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra concluding
> paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but that she doesn't
> want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's examples I would choose
> solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I thought they were a concluding
> subdivision (sans heading) or a separate section (sans heading).
>
> There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and
> divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but the
> content of it.  I don't necessarily see a direct relationship between an
> intellectual division and the format of how something originally
> appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side of a pot.
>
> -James
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Burghart Marjorie
> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently
> using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running
> into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem,
> they just make it more evident.

It worries me a bit that the jTEI schema makes what is already awkward
(the need to wrap trailing <p>s in an anonymous <div>) actually
impossible (because it insists on a <head>), now that we know that for
French historians, and presumably many other disciplines, are trained to
structure documents in exactly this way.

I'm glad you're using jTEI, though, and the more it's used (not just for
the journal), the better it will get if we respond to these things.

Cheers,
Martin

On 2017-01-12 09:18 AM, Marjorie Burghart wrote:

> Hello!
>
> How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm
> (and not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know -
> it might be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art
> of writing" I have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a
> chapter, you must offer a short abstract of the topics and
> conclusions of the current chapter, and offer a "transition" from
> those topics to topic of the next chapter. My PhD certainly follows
> this rule, as did my supervisor's dissertation. The typographic
> conventions may vary: a bit more space before the conclusive
> paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to have asterisks in
> the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has a name?), or
> sometimes nothing particular.
>
> @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome
> is that I have to...
>
> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently
> using it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running
> into this issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem,
> they just make it more evident.
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original ----- De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen"
> <[hidden email]> À: [hidden email] Envoyé: Jeudi
> 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00 Objet: Re: div and p
>
>> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
>> instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a
>> source of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual
>> examples of div,p are quite common in the wild.
>
> Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses since
> 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples we
> had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised to
> hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
> common”.
>
> Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers? Of a
> thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
> paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite common”
> mean, quantitatively?
>
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but not
> part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part of a new
> subdivision of its own?
>
>
> ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Paul Schaffner
In reply to this post by Burghart Marjorie
How common? At a guess? Maybe between 1 and 3% have
some sort of div,p problem.

Typographic signals?  Frequently none, depends on the
nature of the book and of the div.

Strategies? I should add a fifth one: demoting the
subordinate divs to something less than divs, e.g.
numbered or labeled paragraphs, or list items. And
a sixth: breaking the superordinate div into three
divs, "stuff before the analytical bit," "the
analytical bit," and "stuff after the analytical bit."

Examples? They're hard to search for, once successfully
subsumed by one or more of my four (now six) strategies.
The commonest fall into a few categories. E.g.:

In both argumentative / polemical / hortatory
and narrative books, chapters are often subdivided,
but the last subdivision often strays off-topic,
or moves almost invisibly into a general conclusion,
without the latter being typographically marked.

<div><head>The problems with regicide</head>
  <div><head>1. It's illegal</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  </div>
  <div><head>2. It's unscriptural</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  </div>
  <div<head>3. It's imprudent</head>
  <p/>
  <p/>
  <p/>
-->  [</div>] <-----
  <p>All in all, regicide is a bad idea, in fact
  it's one of the worst ideas. I had a dream the
  other night about bad ideas, let me tell you:
  self-driving cars. flavored water. uncomforable
  seats. There are a lot of bad ideas around.
  But regicide is the worst.</p>
</div>

This final bit can also turn into a prayer, or
a peroration, or an apology, or something that
has no obvious category -- except that it does
not belong to the last subdiv in the chapter.

A second variety is typical of documentary anthologies,
e.g. "The letter of Col. Smith from Ireland, together
with the King's proclamation and Parliament's reply"
In one or more of these announced documents, or between
them, or after the last one, the editor might well
suddenly start talking, narrating, or opining, without
much of a clear break from the document. Most of
these, but not all, are dealt with by my 'raisins
in oatmeal' floating text strategy, albeit often with
the dish composed of 90% raisins and only 5% devoted to
the oatmeal matrix.

<div type="collection">
  <div type="letter">...</div>
  <div type="proclamation">...</div>
  <div type="reply">...</div>
  <p>And after this the matter was far from settled...</p>
</div>

A third variety might be called the central-focused
div, in which the first few paragraphs introduce
an issue, followed by a headed subdiv, often formatted
differently, that addresses it in detail, before
yielding again to an undivved set of paragraphs.

<div><head>Baptists and Presbyterians</head>
<p>Let me tell you about B and P.</p>
<p>They may pretend to be different but they're both
the devil's spawn.</p>
<p>In fact, as soon as you compare their doctrines,
they turn out to be virtually indistinguishable.</p>
   <div type="comparison">
   <head>P and B Compared</head>
     <div type="doctrine">
     <head>Salvation</head>
        <div>
        <head>The P doctrine</head>
        </div>
        <div>
        <head>The B doctrine</head>
        </div>
     </div>
     <div type="doctrine">
     <head>Sacrament</head>
       <div>
       <head>The P doctrine</head>
       </div>
       <div>
       <head>The B doctrine</head>
       </div>
     </div>
   </div>
<p>So you see, they're not so different after all,
and once you compare them both to True Catholic
Doctrine, both are clearly faces of the same Heresy.</p>
<p>So I suggest burning them all, don't you agree?</p>
</div>

Here's an actual example of the first type, more or
less (apologies for the upper-cased SGML element names...):

Source: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26917.0001.001?view=toc

<DIV1>
<HEAD>XX. DIRECTIONS FOR CONFIRMATION In a state of Grace.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="direction">
<HEAD>DIRECT. I. Be sure that the Foundation be well laid, both in your
Heads and Hearts; or else you can ne|ver attain to Confirmation, nor be
savingly built up.</HEAD>
<P>TO this end you must know <HI>what the Foundation is, and how it must
be soundly laid</HI>. The <HI>Foundation ...</P>
<P>...</P>
</DIV2>
* * *
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="direction">
<HEAD>DIRECT. XX. Live as with Death continually in your eye, and spend
every day in serious preparation for it, that when it cometh, you may
find your work dispatcht; and may not then cry out in vain to God to try
you once again.</HEAD>
<P>PRomise not your selves long life: Think not of death as at many
years distance, but as hard at hand. Think what will then be need|ful to
your peace and comfort, and order all your life accordingly, and prepare
...</P>
</DIV2>
<P>And now I have given you all these <HI>Directi|ons</HI>, I shall only
request you in the close, that you will set your very hearts to the
daily serious pra|ctise of them; For there is no other way for a ripe
confirmed state of Grace: And as ever you regard the glory of God, the
honour of your Religion, the welfare of the Church and those about you,
and the <HI>living</HI> and <HI>dying</HI> comforts of your selves; O do
not sluggishly rest in an In|fant state of Grace! Did you but know how a
<HI>weak</HI> and <HI>strong</HI> Faith differ, and how a <HI>weak</HI>
and a found <HI>Confirmed Christian</HI> differ, as to the ho|nour of
God, and the good of others, and especi|ally to themselves, both in
<HI>life</HI> and <HI>death</HI>, it would quickly awaken you to a
cheerful diligence, for so high and excellent an end. Did you but well
understand the wrong that Christ and the Gos|pel have sustained in the
World, yea in <HI>England</HI>, by <HI>weak, diseased, distempered</HI>
Christians, your hearts would bleed, and with shame and grief, it would
be your secret and open lamentation. Stir up then the Grace that is
given you, and use Christs means, and do your best, and you will find
that Christ is not an insufficient Physician, nor an uneffectual
Saviour, or an empty Foun|tain; but that he is filled with all the
fulness of God, and hath Spirit and life to communicate to his Members,
<HI>Zech.</HI> 12.8. and that there is no want which he cannot supply,
and no corruption or temptation, which his Grace is not sufficient to
overcome, <HI>John</HI> 4.14. 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 12.9. <HI>Rom.</HI> 6.4,
6. <HI>Col.</HI> 3.1, 3, 4.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>

pfs

ps  This is not intended as an argument for p,div = div,p equality of
treatment,
nor against it for that matter.



On Thu, Jan 12, 2017, at 12:18, Marjorie Burghart wrote:

> Hello!
>
> How common: off the top of my head, I would say that it is the norm (and
> not an oddity) at least for historical essays (for what I know - it might
> be quite common in other genres). This is part of the "art of writing" I
> have been taught as a French historian: at the end of a chapter, you must
> offer a short abstract of the topics and conclusions of the current
> chapter, and offer a "transition" from those topics to topic of the next
> chapter. My PhD certainly follows this rule, as did my supervisor's
> dissertation. The typographic conventions may vary: a bit more space
> before the conclusive paragraph, a separation sign (in my PhD I chose to
> have asterisks in the shape of a triangle, I don't know if this sign has
> a name?), or sometimes nothing particular.
>
> @James: of course I could find workarounds, but what I find irksome is
> that I have to...
>
> @Martin: I don't suggest to change the jTEI format, I'm currently using
> it to write book chapters, which may explain why I'm running into this
> issue. The jTEI rules are not the source of the problem, they just make
> it more evident.
>
>
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[hidden email]>
> À: [hidden email]
> Envoyé: Jeudi 12 Janvier 2017 16:33:00
> Objet: Re: div and p
>
> > On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:28 AM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Just to confirm that in encoding tens of thousands of books, and
> > instructing editors, the p,div vs. div,p issue in TEI has been a source
> > of frequent frustration. Far from being rare, actual examples of
> > div,p are quite common in the wild.
>
> Since we didn’t examine every book printed on Western presses
> since 1470, it would not be surprising if there were counter-examples
> we had missed.  Since however we did look, I’m a little surprised
> to hear you say counter-examples are not just existent but “quite
> common”.  
>
> Can you point to any examples?  Can you give frequency numbers?  
> Of a thousand books, do 400 have material that should go in
> paragraph-level chunks after sub-divisions?  What does “quite
> common” mean, quantitatively?
>
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
> of a new subdivision of its own?
>
>
> ********************************************
> C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> Black Mesa Technologies LLC
> [hidden email]
> http://www.blackmesatech.com
> ********************************************
--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Library Production Service
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Dominique Meeùs
In reply to this post by Burghart Marjorie
On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:32:23 +0100, Marjorie Burghart <[hidden email]> wrote:

>… but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title - that would be against all conventions of Western typography.  

But for you to consider this paragraph as something else than just the next paragraph of the last div, there must have been some Western typographical sign for this. It maybe some decoration like an asterism ⁂ (U+2042) or significantly more white space than usual. This decoration or this extra white space means: “Beware, the following paragraph is a some kind of conclusion or transition.” This is nearly a title. You could there begin a new div with head element containing the asterism or other decoration, or some no break spaces (U+00a0). Is this cheating with a workaround? To me it seems (nearly) semantically honest.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Martin Holmes
On 2017-01-13 12:49 AM, Dominique Mee ùs wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:32:23 +0100, Marjorie Burghart
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> … but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title -
>> that would be against all conventions of Western typography.
>
> But for you to consider this paragraph as something else than just
> the next paragraph of the last div, there must have been some Western
> typographical sign for this. It maybe some decoration like an
> asterism ⁂ (U+2042) or significantly more white space than usual.
> This decoration or this extra white space means: “Beware, the
> following paragraph is a some kind of conclusion or transition.” This
> is nearly a title. You could there begin a new div with head element
> containing the asterism or other decoration, or some no break spaces
> (U+00a0). Is this cheating with a workaround? To me it seems (nearly)
> semantically honest.

The assumption that there must be some typographical feature that
signals the structural organization seems a risky one to me. Perhaps the
structure is inherent in the textual content or the argumentation alone?

Cheers,
Martin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

Paul Schaffner
Right. divs are semantic / structural units, which may or may not
be indicated by visible markers in the print source. It is not only
possible but extremely common to have divs without heads, trailers,
openers, arguments, or any div-liminal elements at all, or indeed
anything but the logical structure of the text.

(and OTOH, it is of course common to find head-like objects
which do not function as the head of any definable div, and
must therefore be relegated to some other status, e.g.
note or label.)

pfs


On Fri, Jan 13, 2017, at 08:36, Martin Holmes wrote:

> On 2017-01-13 12:49 AM, Dominique Mee ùs wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:32:23 +0100, Marjorie Burghart
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> … but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title -
> >> that would be against all conventions of Western typography.
> >
> > But for you to consider this paragraph as something else than just
> > the next paragraph of the last div, there must have been some Western
> > typographical sign for this. It maybe some decoration like an
> > asterism ⁂ (U+2042) or significantly more white space than usual.
> > This decoration or this extra white space means: “Beware, the
> > following paragraph is a some kind of conclusion or transition.” This
> > is nearly a title. You could there begin a new div with head element
> > containing the asterism or other decoration, or some no break spaces
> > (U+00a0). Is this cheating with a workaround? To me it seems (nearly)
> > semantically honest.
>
> The assumption that there must be some typographical feature that
> signals the structural organization seems a risky one to me. Perhaps the
> structure is inherent in the textual content or the argumentation alone?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
--
Paul Schaffner  Digital Library Production Service
[hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

James Cummings-4
In reply to this post by Martin Holmes
On 13/01/17 13:36, Martin Holmes wrote:

> On 2017-01-13 12:49 AM, Dominique Mee ùs wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:32:23 +0100, Marjorie Burghart
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> … but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title -
>>> that would be against all conventions of Western typography.
>>
>> But for you to consider this paragraph as something else than
>> just
>> the next paragraph of the last div, there must have been some
>> Western
>> typographical sign for this. It maybe some decoration like an
>> asterism ⁂ (U+2042) or significantly more white space than usual.
>> This decoration or this extra white space means: “Beware, the
>> following paragraph is a some kind of conclusion or
>> transition.” This
>> is nearly a title. You could there begin a new div with head
>> element
>> containing the asterism or other decoration, or some no break
>> spaces
>> (U+00a0). Is this cheating with a workaround? To me it seems
>> (nearly)
>> semantically honest.
>
> The assumption that there must be some typographical feature
> that signals the structural organization seems a risky one to
> me. Perhaps the structure is inherent in the textual content or
> the argumentation alone?

If there were such a typographical mark then I would certainly
consider what follows as being in another division. However, I do
not think it is necessary and will happily wrap divisions around
things that have no such textual or typographical indications,
merely because I think they should be in a separate division.  
I'm certainly less theoretically rigorous in my use of it than
some would like.

To look back at Paul Schaffner's examples in each case the
concluding material seems to identify itself as such and I would
wrap in a <div type="conclusion"> without a heading if I were
editing those texts.  (Indeed I might even give it such a heading
and supply it.)

-James

--
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

James Cummings-4
In reply to this post by Paul Schaffner
On 13/01/17 15:16, Paul Schaffner wrote:
> Right. divs are semantic / structural units, which may or may not
> be indicated by visible markers in the print source. It is not only
> possible but extremely common to have divs without heads, trailers,
> openers, arguments, or any div-liminal elements at all, or indeed
> anything but the logical structure of the text.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

> (and OTOH, it is of course common to find head-like objects
> which do not function as the head of any definable div, and
> must therefore be relegated to some other status, e.g.
> note or label.)


Oh that we agree on.  In addition to thinking lots of things are
<div>s, and that they aren't necessarily in a fixed order (e.g.
are sidebar divs before, after, between the text divs that they
intrude into?) I also am more than happy to believe that headings
might appear 3/4s of the way down a division.  When I encode
these in TEII rationalise that it is that they are _rendered_
3/4s of the way down but that intellectually they are the heading
for the whole division.  (If they aren't and are a heading for
only part of it... well then you get back into the situation
where I would fragment into sub-divs and others might not.)

-James


--
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford,
TEI Consultations: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: div and p

C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
In reply to this post by Paul Schaffner
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Paul Schaffner <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> How common? At a guess? Maybe between 1 and 3% have
> some sort of div,p problem.
>
> Typographic signals?  Frequently none, depends on the
> nature of the book and of the div.

Perhaps I am too married to the idea that typographic
signals are important clues to textual structure (and
conversely that textual structures unmarked by typography
are different in kind — more likely to be controversial
among analysts, for one thing — from those so marked).
But my reaction to the idea that “we have a textual structure
that’s not marked typographically” is skepticism; that may
be why the numbers 1 to 3 per 100 seem way too high
to me.

But I thank you and Marjorie Burghart for taking seriously my
request for examples.  I think they are very informative.



********************************************
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Black Mesa Technologies LLC
[hidden email]
http://www.blackmesatech.com
********************************************