signed vs. salute

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

signed vs. salute

Torsten Schassan-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all again,

another detail: How differs <signed> from <salute>?

In the examples we have

<closer>
 <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
 <signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

and

<signed>Thine to command
 <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
</signed>


What would you say is the difference here? The latter seems to be of a
kind of closer as well?

Best, Torsten

- --
Torsten Schassan
Digitale Editionen
Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de

http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm
http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFMh2avq4nZEP2KS4QRAhopAJ9KKKHrtL5ZUbc8/ehi5uzkY94JBQCeMxuQ
Fsz+NCFXPL+FnI5zgXdAJus=
=uHF0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Paul Schaffner
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:

> another detail: How differs <signed> from <salute>?
>
> In the examples we have
>
> <closer>
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
> <signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> and
>
> <signed>Thine to command
> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
> </signed>

This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
past, tried to make it one! <signed> and <salute> are two
of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
between them far from obvious --


SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
         dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"

SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
         dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
         salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."


-- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
arrive at a more exact and practical definition:

Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of <signed>. Since
this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
the *quintessential* example of <signed>.

   <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
   <name>Robert Greene.</name>
   </signed>

   <signed>Thine to command <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
   </signed>


Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
phrases as part of <salute>; since these examples include the
canonical example of <salute>, one might even suppose that
they are the quintessential example of <salute>:

   <closer>
   <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
   <signed>Seymour</signed>
   </closer>


   <closer>
   <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
   <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
   </closer>

One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
in the latter group <signed> is wrapped in <closer>,
whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
see what difference that makes.

In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
the signatory as part of <signed>, and all phrases attached to
the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
etc.) as part of <salute>, and always place both within
either <closer> or <opener>. So we would tag like this

<closer>
<salute>Dear sir,</salute>
<signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
</closer>

or this

<opener>
<signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
defender of the faith, &c.</signed>
<salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
</opener>

[We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
appear to suggest that <signed> belongs only at the close,
and <salute> belongs in either the opener or the closer.
For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
or at end of a div, indifferently.]

(Others do it differently.)

pfs




--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schaffner | [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Lou Burnard
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Well, I *think* I understand the difference between <signed> and
<salute>, though I entirely agree with Paul that these elements have
been around a long time and consequently may have been induced to stray
from the straight and narrow by the temptations of hasty encoders
(insert brief excursus on the corruption of innocence here)

<salute> is for a phrase containing a salutation e.g. "To the Reader"
"Dear Sir" "Sincerely yours" etc.

<signed> is for a phrase containing a signature i.e. (necessarily) a
name of some sort, possibly prefixed by some kind of salutation.

It is common practice to wrap the combination of a salutation and a
signature within a <closer> when the combination appears as one of the
div-liminal bits of cruft at the end of a div: see many examples in the
Guidelines. Such examples (which Paul calls "group 2" below) far
outnumber the "group 1" case, where the <signed> is considered to
contain a salutation-like phrase combined with the signature itself, and
thus have a better right to be considered canonical I think. The Group
1s, where  the two are presented as a single unit (e.g. "Your
affectionate son Binkie", or "thine to command, H Moseley") tagged with
just <signed> are rarer, and indicate (I suppose) a less nuanced
encoding. There is of course no reason why "thine to command" should not
be tagged as a <salute>, if it is regarded as sufficiently
"salutation-like" -- either within the <signature> or as a sibling to it.



  On 08/09/10 14:56, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>
>> another detail: How differs<signed>  from<salute>?
>>
>> In the examples we have
>>
>> <closer>
>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <signed>Thine to command
>> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>> </signed>
>
> This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
> past, tried to make it one!<signed>  and<salute>  are two
> of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
> practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
> they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
> between them far from obvious --
>
>
> SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"
>
> SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
>           salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."
>
>
> -- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
> groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
> establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
> arrive at a more exact and practical definition:
>
> Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
> above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of<signed>. Since
> this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
> the *quintessential* example of<signed>.
>
>     <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
>     <name>Robert Greene.</name>
>     </signed>
>
>     <signed>Thine to command<name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>     </signed>
>
>
> Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
> phrases as part of<salute>; since these examples include the
> canonical example of<salute>, one might even suppose that
> they are the quintessential example of<salute>:
>
>     <closer>
>     <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>     <signed>Seymour</signed>
>     </closer>
>
>
>     <closer>
>     <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>     <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
>     </closer>
>
> One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
> in the latter group<signed>  is wrapped in<closer>,
> whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
> see what difference that makes.
>
> In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
> and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
> the signatory as part of<signed>, and all phrases attached to
> the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
> etc.) as part of<salute>, and always place both within
> either<closer>  or<opener>. So we would tag like this
>
> <closer>
> <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
> <signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
> </closer>
>
> or this
>
> <opener>
> <signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
> defender of the faith,&c.</signed>
> <salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
> </opener>
>
> [We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
> appear to suggest that<signed>  belongs only at the close,
> and<salute>  belongs in either the opener or the closer.
> For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
> or at end of a div, indifferently.]
>
> (Others do it differently.)
>
> pfs
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schaffner | [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
> 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

stuart yeates
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
We have used these extensively (and perhaps rather loosely) in the Legal
Māori Archive in the following manner. This example taken from
http://www.nzetc.org/tei-source/Mac01Comp.xml /
http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Mac01Comp.html

<div>
    <head> <!-- doc title --> </head>
    <opener>
       <address>
          <addrLine>Downing Street,</addrLine>
       </address>
       <date>29th December, 1837.</date>
    </opener>
    <salute><hi rend="sc">Dear Lord Durham</hi>,—</salute>

    <p> <!-- message body --> </p>

    <closer>
       <salute>I have, &amp;c.,</salute>
       <signed>
            <hi rend="sc">Glenelg.</hi>
       </signed>
       <salute>The Right Hon. the Earl of Durham, &amp;c.</salute>
    </closer>
</div>

cheers
stuart

Lou Burnard wrote:

> Well, I *think* I understand the difference between <signed> and
> <salute>, though I entirely agree with Paul that these elements have
> been around a long time and consequently may have been induced to stray
> from the straight and narrow by the temptations of hasty encoders
> (insert brief excursus on the corruption of innocence here)
>
> <salute> is for a phrase containing a salutation e.g. "To the Reader"
> "Dear Sir" "Sincerely yours" etc.
>
> <signed> is for a phrase containing a signature i.e. (necessarily) a
> name of some sort, possibly prefixed by some kind of salutation.
>
> It is common practice to wrap the combination of a salutation and a
> signature within a <closer> when the combination appears as one of the
> div-liminal bits of cruft at the end of a div: see many examples in the
> Guidelines. Such examples (which Paul calls "group 2" below) far
> outnumber the "group 1" case, where the <signed> is considered to
> contain a salutation-like phrase combined with the signature itself, and
> thus have a better right to be considered canonical I think. The Group
> 1s, where  the two are presented as a single unit (e.g. "Your
> affectionate son Binkie", or "thine to command, H Moseley") tagged with
> just <signed> are rarer, and indicate (I suppose) a less nuanced
> encoding. There is of course no reason why "thine to command" should not
> be tagged as a <salute>, if it is regarded as sufficiently
> "salutation-like" -- either within the <signature> or as a sibling to it.
>
>
>
>   On 08/09/10 14:56, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>>
>>> another detail: How differs<signed>  from<salute>?
>>>
>>> In the examples we have
>>>
>>> <closer>
>>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>>> </closer>
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> <signed>Thine to command
>>> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>>> </signed>
>> This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
>> past, tried to make it one!<signed>  and<salute>  are two
>> of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
>> practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
>> they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
>> between them far from obvious --
>>
>>
>> SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
>>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"
>>
>> SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
>>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
>>           salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."
>>
>>
>> -- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
>> groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
>> establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
>> arrive at a more exact and practical definition:
>>
>> Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
>> above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of<signed>. Since
>> this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
>> the *quintessential* example of<signed>.
>>
>>     <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
>>     <name>Robert Greene.</name>
>>     </signed>
>>
>>     <signed>Thine to command<name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>>     </signed>
>>
>>
>> Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
>> phrases as part of<salute>; since these examples include the
>> canonical example of<salute>, one might even suppose that
>> they are the quintessential example of<salute>:
>>
>>     <closer>
>>     <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>>     <signed>Seymour</signed>
>>     </closer>
>>
>>
>>     <closer>
>>     <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>>     <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
>>     </closer>
>>
>> One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
>> in the latter group<signed>  is wrapped in<closer>,
>> whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
>> see what difference that makes.
>>
>> In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
>> and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
>> the signatory as part of<signed>, and all phrases attached to
>> the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
>> etc.) as part of<salute>, and always place both within
>> either<closer>  or<opener>. So we would tag like this
>>
>> <closer>
>> <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
>> <signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> or this
>>
>> <opener>
>> <signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
>> defender of the faith,&c.</signed>
>> <salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
>> </opener>
>>
>> [We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
>> appear to suggest that<signed>  belongs only at the close,
>> and<salute>  belongs in either the opener or the closer.
>> For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
>> or at end of a div, indifferently.]
>>
>> (Others do it differently.)
>>
>> pfs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Paul Schaffner | [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
>> 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/     Institutional Repository

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

stuart yeates
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
It was pointed out to me off list that this is probably not best
practice, particularly the final <salute/>.

I'm aware of this and if I were doing the project over, I'd write the
instructions to the encoders about these tags very differently. As it
was we didn't pay much attention to this aspect until it was too late.
Fortunately we don't too much in terms of correspondence analysis so it
doesn't matter on our site in practise.

cheers
stuart

stuart yeates wrote:

> We have used these extensively (and perhaps rather loosely) in the Legal
> Māori Archive in the following manner. This example taken from
> http://www.nzetc.org/tei-source/Mac01Comp.xml /
> http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-Mac01Comp.html
>
> <div>
>     <head> <!-- doc title --> </head>
>     <opener>
>        <address>
>           <addrLine>Downing Street,</addrLine>
>        </address>
>        <date>29th December, 1837.</date>
>     </opener>
>     <salute><hi rend="sc">Dear Lord Durham</hi>,—</salute>
>
>     <p> <!-- message body --> </p>
>
>     <closer>
>        <salute>I have, &amp;c.,</salute>
>        <signed>
>             <hi rend="sc">Glenelg.</hi>
>        </signed>
>        <salute>The Right Hon. the Earl of Durham, &amp;c.</salute>
>     </closer>
> </div>
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Well, I *think* I understand the difference between <signed> and
>> <salute>, though I entirely agree with Paul that these elements have
>> been around a long time and consequently may have been induced to stray
>> from the straight and narrow by the temptations of hasty encoders
>> (insert brief excursus on the corruption of innocence here)
>>
>> <salute> is for a phrase containing a salutation e.g. "To the Reader"
>> "Dear Sir" "Sincerely yours" etc.
>>
>> <signed> is for a phrase containing a signature i.e. (necessarily) a
>> name of some sort, possibly prefixed by some kind of salutation.
>>
>> It is common practice to wrap the combination of a salutation and a
>> signature within a <closer> when the combination appears as one of the
>> div-liminal bits of cruft at the end of a div: see many examples in the
>> Guidelines. Such examples (which Paul calls "group 2" below) far
>> outnumber the "group 1" case, where the <signed> is considered to
>> contain a salutation-like phrase combined with the signature itself, and
>> thus have a better right to be considered canonical I think. The Group
>> 1s, where  the two are presented as a single unit (e.g. "Your
>> affectionate son Binkie", or "thine to command, H Moseley") tagged with
>> just <signed> are rarer, and indicate (I suppose) a less nuanced
>> encoding. There is of course no reason why "thine to command" should not
>> be tagged as a <salute>, if it is regarded as sufficiently
>> "salutation-like" -- either within the <signature> or as a sibling to it.
>>
>>
>>
>>   On 08/09/10 14:56, Paul F. Schaffner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2010, Torsten Schassan wrote:
>>>
>>>> another detail: How differs<signed>  from<salute>?
>>>>
>>>> In the examples we have
>>>>
>>>> <closer>
>>>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>>>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>>>> </closer>
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> <signed>Thine to command
>>>> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>>>> </signed>
>>> This is a matter of controversy, or at least I have, in the
>>> past, tried to make it one!<signed>  and<salute>  are two
>>> of the older tags in TEI (which means that very disparate
>>> practices and bodies of legacy data have grown over time);
>>> they are defined in such a way as to make any essential difference
>>> between them far from obvious --
>>>
>>>
>>> SIGNED: "contains the closing salutation, etc., appended to a foreword,
>>>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text"
>>>
>>> SALUTE: "contains a salutation or greeting prefixed to a foreword,
>>>           dedicatory epistle, or other division of a text, or the
>>>           salutation in the closing of a letter, preface, etc."
>>>
>>>
>>> -- and the examples fall into two (I think mutually antagonistic)
>>> groups, leaving it unclear which examples to emulate in
>>> establishing one's own practice, or in attempting to
>>> arrive at a more exact and practical definition:
>>>
>>> Group 1 (the 'canonical' example of signed, and your second example
>>> above) treats "yours truly" and such phrases as part of<signed>. Since
>>> this is the canonical example, one might even suppose that they are
>>> the *quintessential* example of<signed>.
>>>
>>>     <signed>Thy repentant husband for his disloyaltie,
>>>     <name>Robert Greene.</name>
>>>     </signed>
>>>
>>>     <signed>Thine to command<name>Humph. Moseley</name>
>>>     </signed>
>>>
>>>
>>> Group 2 (your first example above) treats "yours truly" and similar
>>> phrases as part of<salute>; since these examples include the
>>> canonical example of<salute>, one might even suppose that
>>> they are the quintessential example of<salute>:
>>>
>>>     <closer>
>>>     <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>>>     <signed>Seymour</signed>
>>>     </closer>
>>>
>>>
>>>     <closer>
>>>     <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>>>     <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
>>>     </closer>
>>>
>>> One cannot, in my view, have it both ways. I realize that
>>> in the latter group<signed>  is wrapped in<closer>,
>>> whereas in the former group it is not, but I do not
>>> see what difference that makes.
>>>
>>> In our own practice, we have decided to follow Group 1,
>>> and treat all phrases descriptive of, or in apposition to,
>>> the signatory as part of<signed>, and all phrases attached to
>>> the addressee (and all phrases of greeting (vale, salutem,
>>> etc.) as part of<salute>, and always place both within
>>> either<closer>  or<opener>. So we would tag like this
>>>
>>> <closer>
>>> <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
>>> <signed>your most obedient servant, J. Smith</signed>
>>> </closer>
>>>
>>> or this
>>>
>>> <opener>
>>> <signed>Charles, king of England, Ireland, and France,
>>> defender of the faith,&c.</signed>
>>> <salute>to the Sheriff of Nottingham, greetings.<salute>
>>> </opener>
>>>
>>> [We also ignore the confusing parts of the definition that
>>> appear to suggest that<signed>  belongs only at the close,
>>> and<salute>  belongs in either the opener or the closer.
>>> For us, either one or both can appear either at beginning
>>> or at end of a div, indifferently.]
>>>
>>> (Others do it differently.)
>>>
>>> pfs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Paul Schaffner | [hidden email] | http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/
>>> 316-C Hatcher Library N, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI 48109-1190
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/     Institutional Repository

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Peter Stadler
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Torsten,

thank you for reminding me of this issue ;-)
It has been on our correspondence SIG agenda where we tried to discuss
it in the context of other correspondence related elements (but have
not yet succeeded in solving it).
Personally, I think there is too much syntactic sugar in here - but
what really annoys me is the fact that you cannot nest signed/salute
within e.g. hi or seg (within a closer/opener)

Sorry for hijacking this thread
Peter

Am 08.09.2010 um 12:34 schrieb Torsten Schassan:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all again,
>
> another detail: How differs <signed> from <salute>?
>
> In the examples we have
>
> <closer>
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
> <signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> and
>
> <signed>Thine to command
> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
> </signed>
>
>
> What would you say is the difference here? The latter seems to be of a
> kind of closer as well?
>
> Best, Torsten
>
> - --
> Torsten Schassan
> Digitale Editionen
> Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
> Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de
>
> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm
> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFMh2avq4nZEP2KS4QRAhopAJ9KKKHrtL5ZUbc8/ehi5uzkY94JBQCeMxuQ
> Fsz+NCFXPL+FnI5zgXdAJus=
> =uHF0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Am 08.09.2010 um 12:34 schrieb Torsten Schassan:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all again,
>
> another detail: How differs <signed> from <salute>?
>
> In the examples we have
>
> <closer>
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
> <signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> and
>
> <signed>Thine to command
> <name>Humph. Moseley</name>
> </signed>
>
>
> What would you say is the difference here? The latter seems to be of a
> kind of closer as well?
>
> Best, Torsten
>
> - --
> Torsten Schassan
> Digitale Editionen
> Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
> Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at} hab.de
>
> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/europeana-regia.htm
> http://www.hab.de/forschung/projekte/weiss64.htm
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFMh2avq4nZEP2KS4QRAhopAJ9KKKHrtL5ZUbc8/ehi5uzkY94JBQCeMxuQ
> Fsz+NCFXPL+FnI5zgXdAJus=
> =uHF0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Lou Burnard
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Peter Stadler wrote:

> what really annoys me is the fact that you cannot nest signed/salute
> within e.g. hi or seg (within a closer/opener)

Could you give us an example of where you might want to do this?

The reason is that these are specialised elements which don't form part
of the usual model.phrase hierarchy. If they did, then they'd pop up
everywhere which is usually not what people want.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Peter Stadler
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Am 09.09.2010 um 14:24 schrieb Lou:

> Peter Stadler wrote:
>
>> what really annoys me is the fact that you cannot nest signed/
>> salute  within e.g. hi or seg (within a closer/opener)
>
> Could you give us an example of where you might want to do this?
>
> The reason is that these are specialised elements which don't form
> part of the usual model.phrase hierarchy. If they did, then they'd
> pop up everywhere which is usually not what people want.

Well, (I guess) I do understand the problem but nevertheless something
like
<closer>
<hi rend="underline">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
<signed>Seymour</signed>
</hi>
</closer>

seems to me more elegant and adequate (given salute and signed are
written on one line)
than
<closer>
<salute><hi rend="underline">Sincerely yours,</hi></salute>
<signed><hi rend="underline">Seymour</hi></signed>
</closer>

Peter

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Lou Burnard
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
<closer rend="underline">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute><signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

would be even better though wouldn't it?


Peter Stadler wrote:

>
> Well, (I guess) I do understand the problem but nevertheless something
> like
> <closer>
> <hi rend="underline">
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
> <signed>Seymour</signed>
> </hi>
> </closer>
>
> seems to me more elegant and adequate (given salute and signed are
> written on one line)
> than
> <closer>
> <salute><hi rend="underline">Sincerely yours,</hi></salute>
> <signed><hi rend="underline">Seymour</hi></signed>
> </closer>
>
> Peter

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Peter Stadler
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Am 09.09.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Lou:

> <closer rend="underline">
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute><signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> would be even better though wouldn't it?

I knew you would come up with a proper solution for my improper example.
My point is (and I guess that's what does not fit into the "usual
model.phrase hierarchy") that there are elements like hi and seg which
are (kind of) semantically empty (seg: "represents any segmentation of
text below the ‘chunk’ level" (current guidelines)) and so can occur
almost everywhere - but the other way round these elements constrain
their content prohibiting a signed within a closer ...

Peter

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
On 10-09-09 07:33 AM, Lou wrote:
> <closer rend="underline">
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute><signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> would be even better though wouldn't it?

I'd really like to see an attribute called @css, available on every
element, that would codify the way we describe the rendering and
appearance of text and objects, like this:

<closer css="text-decoration: underline;">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute> <signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

Codified and clear, easy to validate (XML -> XSLT -> complete CSS
stylesheet -> Jigsaw CSS validator), and easy to learn. Also wonderfully
simple when you're rendering the XML to XHTML or XSL:FO.

Cheers,
Martin

> Peter Stadler wrote:
>>
>> Well, (I guess) I do understand the problem but nevertheless something
>> like
>> <closer>
>> <hi rend="underline">
>> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>> </hi>
>> </closer>
>>
>> seems to me more elegant and adequate (given salute and signed are
>> written on one line)
>> than
>> <closer>
>> <salute><hi rend="underline">Sincerely yours,</hi></salute>
>> <signed><hi rend="underline">Seymour</hi></signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> Peter
>

--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([hidden email])

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Sebastian Rahtz
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
On 9 Sep 2010, at 16:18, Martin Holmes wrote:

>
> I'd really like to see an attribute called @css, available on every
> element, that would codify the way we describe the rendering and
> appearance of text and objects, like this:
>
The faclity you want is provided by HTML's @style. So one way
to achieve this is to take that from HTML's namespace,  as in

     <p html:style="text-indent:1em;">hello</p>

(declaring the HTML namespace, of course). That, to my
mind, even cleaner, and avoids the TEI getting into areas
that are not its business.

Cue discussion of @rend vs @rendition, by the way
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Dot Porter-2
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
I'd use @rend:


<closer rend="text-decoration: underline;">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute> <signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

Is there a problem with putting the CSS in @rend?

Dot

On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Martin Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10-09-09 07:33 AM, Lou wrote:
<closer rend="underline">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute><signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

would be even better though wouldn't it?

I'd really like to see an attribute called @css, available on every element, that would codify the way we describe the rendering and appearance of text and objects, like this:

<closer css="text-decoration: underline;">

<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute> <signed>Seymour</signed>
</closer>

Codified and clear, easy to validate (XML -> XSLT -> complete CSS stylesheet -> Jigsaw CSS validator), and easy to learn. Also wonderfully simple when you're rendering the XML to XHTML or XSL:FO.

Cheers,
Martin


Peter Stadler wrote:

Well, (I guess) I do understand the problem but nevertheless something
like
<closer>
<hi rend="underline">
<salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
<signed>Seymour</signed>
</hi>
</closer>

seems to me more elegant and adequate (given salute and signed are
written on one line)
than
<closer>
<salute><hi rend="underline">Sincerely yours,</hi></salute>
<signed><hi rend="underline">Seymour</hi></signed>
</closer>

Peter


--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([hidden email])



--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Dot Porter (MA, MSLS)� � � �
Digital Medievalist, Digital Librarian
Email: [hidden email]
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
On 10-09-09 12:03 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

>
> On 9 Sep 2010, at 16:18, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>>
>> I'd really like to see an attribute called @css, available on every
>> element, that would codify the way we describe the rendering and
>> appearance of text and objects, like this:
>>
> The faclity you want is provided by HTML's @style. So one way
> to achieve this is to take that from HTML's namespace,  as in
>
>       <p html:style="text-indent:1em;">hello</p>
>
> (declaring the HTML namespace, of course). That, to my
> mind, even cleaner, and avoids the TEI getting into areas
> that are not its business.

My argument is that this very much IS the TEI's business; we spend so
much time describing in painful detail (yet idiosyncratically) the
appearance and rendering of text and objects that we should simply adopt
the CSS standard natively, just as we've adopted ISO and W3 date formats
for e.g. @when. @html:style is an attribute for describing how HTML
elements should appear (using CSS). @tei:css would be our own attribute,
just using the same language.

Cheers,
Martin


--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([hidden email])

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
HI Dot,

On 10-09-09 12:52 PM, Dot Porter wrote:
> I'd use @rend:
>
>
> <closer rend="text-decoration: underline;">
> <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute> <signed>Seymour</signed>
> </closer>
>
> Is there a problem with putting the CSS in @rend?

No -- that's what I do. But there's such a history of using @rend in a
variety of recommended and unrecommended ways that I think it would be
cleaner to start with a new attribute, which has never contained
anything except CSS.

Cheers,
Martin

>
> Dot
>
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Martin Holmes <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 10-09-09 07:33 AM, Lou wrote:
>
>         <closer rend="underline">
>         <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute><signed>Seymour</signed>
>         </closer>
>
>         would be even better though wouldn't it?
>
>
>     I'd really like to see an attribute called @css, available on every
>     element, that would codify the way we describe the rendering and
>     appearance of text and objects, like this:
>
>     <closer css="text-decoration: underline;">
>
>     <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute> <signed>Seymour</signed>
>     </closer>
>
>     Codified and clear, easy to validate (XML -> XSLT -> complete CSS
>     stylesheet -> Jigsaw CSS validator), and easy to learn. Also
>     wonderfully simple when you're rendering the XML to XHTML or XSL:FO.
>
>     Cheers,
>     Martin
>
>
>         Peter Stadler wrote:
>
>
>             Well, (I guess) I do understand the problem but nevertheless
>             something
>             like
>             <closer>
>             <hi rend="underline">
>             <salute>Sincerely yours,</salute>
>             <signed>Seymour</signed>
>             </hi>
>             </closer>
>
>             seems to me more elegant and adequate (given salute and
>             signed are
>             written on one line)
>             than
>             <closer>
>             <salute><hi rend="underline">Sincerely yours,</hi></salute>
>             <signed><hi rend="underline">Seymour</hi></signed>
>             </closer>
>
>             Peter
>
>
>
>     --
>     Martin Holmes
>     University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
>     ([hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>)
>
>
>
>
> --
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Dot Porter (MA, MSLS)
> Digital Medievalist, Digital Librarian
> Email: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([hidden email])

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Sebastian Rahtz
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
On 9 Sep 2010, at 21:18, Martin Holmes wrote:

>
> My argument is that this very much IS the TEI's business; we spend so
> much time describing in painful detail (yet idiosyncratically) the
> appearance and rendering of text and objects that we should simply adopt
> the CSS standard natively

not much help when you're making docx or LaTeX :-}

> ,just as we've adopted ISO and W3 date formats
> for e.g. @when.

I confess, thats a good argument.

> @html:style is an attribute for describing how HTML
> elements should appear (using CSS). @tei:css would be our own attribute,
> just using the same language.


I can see the attraction. I cannot quite decide how I'd vote,
if I had to.
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

stuart yeates
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2010, at 21:18, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>> My argument is that this very much IS the TEI's business; we spend so
>> much time describing in painful detail (yet idiosyncratically) the
>> appearance and rendering of text and objects that we should simply adopt
>> the CSS standard natively
>
> not much help when you're making docx or LaTeX :-}

docx and LaTeX are easy, because things only have to 'look right' and
semi-objective measures of transformations between them are possible
because they're implicitly based on the print model. The real problems
are when generating DAISY books, microformats, etc.

>> ,just as we've adopted ISO and W3 date formats
>> for e.g. @when.
>
> I confess, thats a good argument.

I disagree.

Once I know that dates are in a standard format I can then
algorithmically translate them to other calendrical systems (see for
example
http://emr.cs.iit.edu/home/reingold/calendar-book/third-edition/). I'm
not aware of any sane method of systematically transforming CSS into any
other styling system (except perhaps output-only ones).

cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/     Institutional Repository

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Sebastian Rahtz
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
> I'm
> not aware of any sane method of systematically transforming CSS into any
> other styling system

I am not entirely sure why this is hard? you can obviously parse (the subset of it allowed on @style)
into a set of name/value pairs (simple enough even in XSL), and then decide which ones you can support for your chosen target.
Turning it into LaTeX, for example, would be rather easy (not dissimlar to what PassiveTeX
does with XSL FO properties). I agree it's limited to presentational aspects, but that's what its for.

The rendering to DAISY or microformats would very likely ignore both @[html:]css and @rend, and look at the element
name and @type, I assume?

--
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

stuart yeates
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> The rendering to DAISY or microformats would very likely ignore both @[html:]css and @rend, and look at the element
> name and @type, I assume?

I see no reason why aural renditions of texts such as DAISY books
shouldn't use stylistic hints in much the same way as two-dimensional
textual ones use stylistic hints.

cheers
stuart
--
Stuart Yeates
http://www.nzetc.org/       New Zealand Electronic Text Centre
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/     Institutional Repository

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Hi Sebastian,

On 10-09-09 01:41 PM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

>
> On 9 Sep 2010, at 21:18, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>>
>> My argument is that this very much IS the TEI's business; we spend so
>> much time describing in painful detail (yet idiosyncratically) the
>> appearance and rendering of text and objects that we should simply adopt
>> the CSS standard natively
>
> not much help when you're making docx or LaTeX :-}

I don't know about that, but it's a reasonable start; whatever you need
to produce for docx or LaTeX, you're better off (surely) if you start
from a highly structured and constrained language like CSS than you are
trying to anticipate the huge variety of stuff people might put into @rend.

>> ,just as we've adopted ISO and W3 date formats
>> for e.g. @when.
>
> I confess, thats a good argument.
>
>> @html:style is an attribute for describing how HTML
>> elements should appear (using CSS). @tei:css would be our own attribute,
>> just using the same language.
>
> I can see the attraction. I cannot quite decide how I'd vote,
> if I had to.

I'll keep prodding then. I'm going to put in a feature request at some
point. It would also address this feature request:

<http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1007369&group_id=106328&atid=644065>

because CSS gives us display: inline | block, float: left, and so on.

Cheers,
Martin

> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>
>
>
>

--
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([hidden email])

12