signed vs. salute

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

Re: signed vs. salute

Sebastian Rahtz
On 9 Sep 2010, at 22:35, stuart yeates wrote:
>
> 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.
>
well, there are three possibilities, I guess

  a)   if you have an algorithm which somehow maps
ranges of RGB color values to classes of aural renditions,
then write defensive mappable CSS

  b)  if you prefer abstract notations use
  (eg) rend='funny"

  c) if you want to specify explicitly that the text should look red with underline
   but the aural rendering use a female voice, then add another
   attribute in a daisy: namespace

honestly, the seems like a storm in a pedants teacup. Martin
is simply suggesting that when he wants (for some reason) to
specify precise "typeset" layout, he should use
CSS notation.
--
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

Martin Holmes
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
On 10-09-09 02:35 PM, stuart yeates wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. And CSS can do that for us too:

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/aural.html

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

Torsten Schassan-2
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

> don't see any need for a new attribute. @rend allows CSS values;
> @rendition encourages CSS values. And both allow for other values for
> things that cannot be expressed using CSS.

I very much second John's argument especially as I think about further
problems defining *which* version of css the @tei:css will represent or
would we need @tei:css2, @tei:css21, and @tei:css3?


If I tried to summarize the original discussion would we agree on

1. <salute> and <signed> especially when they appear together should be
wrapped in <opener>/<closer>;

2. <salute> contains text that addresses another person respectively the
greeting expression while <signed> represents the writing person;

3. if (2.) is valid, the use of <name> inside <signed> would be very
much recommended?

The *quintessential* examples would be for <signed>

<signed>Thine to command
 <name type="person">Humph. Moseley</name>
</signed>

and

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

rather than

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


For <salute>

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


Any objections (especially from the Correspondence SIG) to that summary?
Would that qualify for a SourceForge ticket?

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/

iD8DBQFMiea6q4nZEP2KS4QRAg5gAJ4ij51wgUog6PfpddWlqMICzgW0gACghuWV
GzViZWcQFdd+YwOGS7VDK2Y=
=tXvJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Veit (Weber-Gesamtausgabe)
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
  Hi Torsten,
thanks a lot for this summary of the discussion - but from my point of
view I would not fully consent:
1. ok: <salute/> and <signed/> should be "wrapped in"-elements
2. also ok! But if your text is the "greeting expression" I would argue
that:

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

is much clearer than:

<signed>Thine to command
  <name type="person">Humph. Moseley</name>
</signed>

because "Thine to command" is a typical greeting formula, not a part of a "signed" (and even if some persons use the "humble servant" as part of the "signing formula" I would prefer to split these things up).
If you want to specify the name of the person I would use:

<closer>
  <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
  <signed><persName key="xxxx"/>Joseph Wanton Jr</persName></signed>
</closer>

or
<closer>
  <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
  <signed><name type="person" key="xxxx"/>Joseph Wanton Jr</name></signed>
</closer>

But the definition on the TEI-page confirms your version because it says that<signed>  contains "the closing salutation" - but that's strange, because what is<salute>  if it is not a "salutation"? or which is the place to split off a salutation in "beginning" and "final"?
And in that case you would need something like
<closer>
    <p>Please give many greetings to all your friends and stay convinced that</p>
    <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
    <signed>....</signed>
</closer>

- and that would be wrong because<p>  is not allowed within the closer-element!

So perhaps the definitions need to be more explicit??

I regret if that doesn't help to solve the question...
Yours,
Joachim





Am 10.09.10 10:05, schrieb Torsten Schassan:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>> don't see any need for a new attribute. @rend allows CSS values;
>> @rendition encourages CSS values. And both allow for other values for
>> things that cannot be expressed using CSS.
> I very much second John's argument especially as I think about further
> problems defining *which* version of css the @tei:css will represent or
> would we need @tei:css2, @tei:css21, and @tei:css3?
>
>
> If I tried to summarize the original discussion would we agree on
>
> 1.<salute>  and<signed>  especially when they appear together should be
> wrapped in<opener>/<closer>;
>
> 2.<salute>  contains text that addresses another person respectively the
> greeting expression while<signed>  represents the writing person;
>
> 3. if (2.) is valid, the use of<name>  inside<signed>  would be very
> much recommended?
>
> The *quintessential* examples would be for<signed>
>
> <signed>Thine to command
>   <name type="person">Humph. Moseley</name>
> </signed>
>
> and
>
> <closer>
>   <signed>I am your most humble servant
>    <name>Joseph Wanton Jr</name>
>   </signed>
> </closer>
>
> rather than
>
> <closer>
>   <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>   <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
> </closer>
>
>
> For<salute>
>
> <closer>
>   <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
>   <signed>your most obedient servant,
>    <name>J. Smith</name>
>   </signed>
> </closer>
>
>
> Any objections (especially from the Correspondence SIG) to that summary?
> Would that qualify for a SourceForge ticket?
>
> 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/
>
> iD8DBQFMiea6q4nZEP2KS4QRAg5gAJ4ij51wgUog6PfpddWlqMICzgW0gACghuWV
> GzViZWcQFdd+YwOGS7VDK2Y=
> =tXvJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Veit (Weber-Gesamtausgabe)
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
  Hi Torsten,
please excuse, my last example was a mistake - it might be either:

<closer>
<salute>Please give many greetings to all your friends and stay
convinced that</salute>
<signed>I am your most humble servant <persName>Joseph
Wrong</persName></signed>
</closer>

(which in my eyes is a strange representation of "signed" which is
closely connected to "signature")

or working with some attributes in order to differentiate between types
of a "salute"-formula:

<closer>
<salute type="inital">Please give many greetings to all your friends and
stay convinced that</salute>
<salute type"personal_formula">I am your most humble servant</salute>
<signed><persName>Joseph Wrong</persName>, vicar of Wakefield.</signed>
</closer>

or much simpler:
<closer>Please give many greetings to all your friends and stay
convinced that
<salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
<signed><persName>Joseph Wrong</persName>, vicar of Wakefield.</signed>
</closer>

This last one would be my prefered solution.
Indeed there seems to be some uncertainty about the real sense of
"signed" and perhaps the definition should be narrower as in the example
from official <signed>-description??

Best wishes, (and excuse for confusion!)
Joachim

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: signed vs. salute

Paul Schaffner
In reply to this post by Torsten Schassan-2
Yes, both <signed> and <salute> are defined as a
"salutation". That is the nub of the problem. Nothing
in the definition of <signed> suggests that it serves
only to contain the designation (name and titles)
of the signatory person(s). We prefer to interpret the
definition 'closing salutation' as meaning that <signed>
should contain the entire 'signatory statement,' or claim
of responsibility (as opposed to an attribution of
responsibility, which belongs to <byline>, another issue!).

I think there were a few factors (aside from the 'canonical'
example, i.e. the one actually given in the element definition
of <signed>) that led to our interpretation of <signed> as a container
for all the 'yours truly' sort of phrases (to my mind, 'signing
phrases,' not 'greeting phrases'). The most important
was perhaps that in writing instructions for data-conversion
firms,  I could find no tenable rule by which to tell them to
distinguish between many grammatically and semantically similar
constructions, as splitting them between <signed> and <salute>
seemed to require. E.g.:

(1) Everyone agrees (I think) that the first three examples below
belong entirely in <signed>. But I could see no essential difference
between those and the fourth and fifth examples, which some would
divide between <signed> and <salute>:


#1 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>John</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#2 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>John, lieutenant of the Tower</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#3 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>John, lieutenant of the Tower and servant of God</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#4 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>John, lieutenant, etc., and your obedient servant</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#5 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>Your obedient servant, John, lieutenant of the Tower.</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>


(2) Likewise, I could see no essential difference between phrases,
all descriptive of the signatory, that happened to refer to the
addressee and those that did not. I gather that some would put
the former (#2 below) in <salute> but not the latter (#1 below).
Nor could I see what to do--or how to tell my keyers what to do--when both
kinds of phrases were combined (#3 below).

#1 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>A Public Servant</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#2 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>Your obedient Servant</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>

#3 <CLOSER>
<SIGNED>A Friend to Humanity and to your Welfare</SIGNED>
</CLOSER>


-- Someone in this thread suggested that every <signed> must contain
    a name (or at least a nom de plume). We tag many abbreviated ones
    that do not, usu.of the form <signed>Yours truly, &c.</signed>
    Surely this falls under the definition of <signed> as 'a closing
    salutation'!


-- Below is a random and generous selection of <signed> tags
    (and a few <salute>s) from the 5,546 found in my current
    review batch. Tag them as you will! See how much variety,
    or unanimity, arises (n.b., you will see that we allow <list> within
    <signed>,  a local customization.)


pfs


Samples
=======

<SIGNED>Jeremiah Rich.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Yours (desirous particularly to be engaged yours
to serve you,) <HI>JOHN LILBURN.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your assured loving friend and servant,
EDWARD WOLBY.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>A Faithfull Servant to all Lovers of
<HI>Musick,</HI> JOHN PLAYFORD.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>Your Lordship</HI>'s <HI>most Faithful and
most Obedient Servant,</HI> Stephen Willoughby.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your servant till Death. <HI>Captaine</HI>
John  Williams.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>From a Sufferer for the Truth and Righteousness sake,
known to many of you by the Name of <HI>Isabel Wails.</HI>
</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>Jo. Radford</HI> Foreman of the Mineral
Grand Jury there, with his fellows.
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Walter Webb.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Richard Franke.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Richard Adams.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Jahn Phelps.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Thomas Younge.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>William Dowling.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Alexandor Cuer.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>William Hopkins.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Jonas Lexstond.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>John House.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Richard Ayrer.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED>


<SIGNED>A True Lover of his Countries Honour, <HI>W. W.</HI>
</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>Your most affectionately devoted Brethren in Christ,</HI>
<LIST>
<ITEM>Commissioners of the Church of <HI>Scotland.</HI>
    <LIST>
    <ITEM><HI>Jo. Maitland,</HI></ITEM>
    <ITEM><HI>A. Jhonston,</HI></ITEM>
    <ITEM><HI>Alex. Henderson,</HI></ITEM>
    <ITEM><HI>Sam. Rutherfurd,</HI></ITEM>
    <ITEM><HI>Rob. Bailyie.</HI></ITEM>
    <ITEM><HI>Geo. Gillespie.</HI></ITEM>
    </LIST>
</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>William Twisse,</HI> Prolocutor,</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Cornel. Burges,</HI> Assessor,</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Jo. White,</HI> Assessor,</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Henry Robrough,</HI> Scribe,</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Adoniram Byfield,</HI> Scribe.</ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>H. Elsynge, Cler. Parl. D. Com.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Wholly and intirely your most affectionate
Kinsman and humble servant. <HI>F. W.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Thy most Affectionate and Faithful Husband,
and their most loving Father, <HI>J. H.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Thy souls well-wisher, <HI>Richard Kentish.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED><LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Adam Samuel Hartman,</HI> Pastor of the Church of <HI>Lesna</HI>
in <HI>Poland,</HI> and Rector of the famous University there.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Paul Cyril</HI> a late Member of the Univer&s;ity of
<HI>Ly&s;na.</HI></ITEM></LIST></SIGNED>

<SALUTE>SIR,</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>An Admirer of your indefatigable industry and rare
abilities, JOHN TRAPP.</SIGNED>

<DATELINE>Written in the true fear of the Lord,</DATELINE>
<SIGNED>by me his Servant, Anthony Tompkins.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE><DATE>The 2d day of the 11th Moneth, 68.</DATE></DATELINE>


<SIGNED>Yours, The Inhabitants of the County of Rutland.</SIGNED>

<DATELINE>Written in <HI>York</HI> Castle,</DATELINE>
<SIGNED>by your dear Brother, and lover of your souls, known unto
you by the name of <HI>Samuel Thornton.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your Maiesties faithfull Subiects and Servants.
<LIST>
<ITEM>Earle <HI>Lothian.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Earle <HI>Lindesay.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Lord <HI>Balmerino.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>Thomas Morton.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>Thomas Hope.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>Archibauld Johnston</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Burgesses.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Sir <HI>Iohn Smith.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Master <HI>Robert Barklay.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Master <HI>Patrick Bell.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED>

<SALUTE>VALE LECTOR, &amp; fruere.</SALUTE>

<SALUTE>Adieu Madam.</SALUTE>

<SIGNED>Your Servant, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>So help me God. <HI>DANIEL SCARGILL.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your sorrowfull friend, and brother in Christ,
<HI>Thomas Sweet.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your Worships affectionate Kinsman and Servant.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your Lordship's Most Passionate Admirer And Most Devoted
Humble Servant.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your true friend and Cosen, <HI>Nathanael
Warters.</HI></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>We subscribe our selves,
Your Brethren in the Faith and Fellowship of the Gospel,
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>William Kiffin,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>George Barrett,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Robert Steed,</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Edward Man.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST></SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Thine to serve thee for the Publike good, G.  A.</SIGNED>

<SALUTE>>MY LORD!</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your <HI>Highness,</HI> though unknown, yet most
humble servant.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>From thy Friend, and all Peoples, In Sincerity
and Truth,</HI> Thomas Rudd.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>one</HI> of the meanest of Your Servants for
Christ, and this Commonwealth. <HI>JO. ROGERS.</HI></SIGNED>


<SIGNED>Your affectionate fellow Apprentices of Bridge
Ward within.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE><HI>Dated</HI> <DATE>the 17 <HI>of</HI> May, 1649. <HI>the
first year of Englands hopeful Restauration, through the blessing of
God, to its primitive Liberty.</HI></DATE></DATELINE>


<SALUTE>My Lord, </SALUTE>
<SIGNED><HI>Your Most Humble and Most Obedient Servants,
the Agents General of the Clergy of</HI> France. <HI>The Abbot</HI>
de VILLARS. <HI>The Abbot</HI> PHILYPEA&V;X.</SIGNED>
<DATELINE><HI>Paris</HI> <DATE>this <HI>2d. of</HI> October,
<HI>1688.</HI></DATE></DATELINE>

<SIGNED>By the Contriver of the Citizens Protestation,
here following.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED><HI>Yours unfeignedly, in the right way of the Gospel
to serve you faithfully, according to my measure in the things
of Jesus Christ,</HI> THO: LAMBE.</SIGNED>


<SALUTE>(SIR,)</SALUTE>
<SIGNED>Your most affectionate Friend, heartily to serve you
[being yet as much an English man as ever I was] <HI>JOHN LILBURN,
Semper idem</HI></SIGNED>
<DATELINE>From my delightfull dwelling in Bruges,
<DATE>Saturday, Novemb. the 9. 1652. New stile.</DATE></DATELINE>
<TRAILER>The End.</TRAILER>


<SIGNED><HI>I subscribe myself Your Fellow-Citizen,</HI>
A FRIEND TO HUMANITY.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your servant, S--l C--h, forever.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>THOMAS GORDON, Attorney in fact for WILLIAM
CUNNINGHAM &amp; Co.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>WM. GIBBONS, <HI>President and Delegate from Chatham.</HI>
</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Thomas Gozaeus a Bellomonte, sacrae Theologiae
Professor, &amp; authoritate Pontificis librorum approbator.</SIGNED>

<SIGNED>Your Honours obliged servant though unworthiest
among the Ministers of Christ. <HI>THO. MARRIOT.</HI></SIGNED>


======================


On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Veit (Weber-Gesamtausgabe) wrote:

> Hi Torsten,
> thanks a lot for this summary of the discussion - but from my point of view I
> would not fully consent:
> 1. ok: <salute/> and <signed/> should be "wrapped in"-elements
> 2. also ok! But if your text is the "greeting expression" I would argue that:
>
> <closer>
> <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
> <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
> </closer>
>
> is much clearer than:
>
> <signed>Thine to command
> <name type="person">Humph. Moseley</name>
> </signed>
>
> because "Thine to command" is a typical greeting formula, not a part of a
> "signed" (and even if some persons use the "humble servant" as part of the
> "signing formula" I would prefer to split these things up).
> If you want to specify the name of the person I would use:
>
> <closer>
> <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
> <signed><persName key="xxxx"/>Joseph Wanton Jr</persName></signed>
> </closer>
>
> or
> <closer>
> <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
> <signed><name type="person" key="xxxx"/>Joseph Wanton Jr</name></signed>
> </closer>
>
> But the definition on the TEI-page confirms your version because it says
> that<signed>  contains "the closing salutation" - but that's strange, because
> what is<salute>  if it is not a "salutation"? or which is the place to split
> off a salutation in "beginning" and "final"?
> And in that case you would need something like
> <closer>
>   <p>Please give many greetings to all your friends and stay convinced
> that</p>
>   <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>   <signed>....</signed>
> </closer>
>
> - and that would be wrong because<p>  is not allowed within the
> closer-element!
>
> So perhaps the definitions need to be more explicit??
>
> I regret if that doesn't help to solve the question...
> Yours,
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 10.09.10 10:05, schrieb Torsten Schassan:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> don't see any need for a new attribute. @rend allows CSS values;
>>> @rendition encourages CSS values. And both allow for other values for
>>> things that cannot be expressed using CSS.
>> I very much second John's argument especially as I think about further
>> problems defining *which* version of css the @tei:css will represent or
>> would we need @tei:css2, @tei:css21, and @tei:css3?
>>
>>
>> If I tried to summarize the original discussion would we agree on
>>
>> 1.<salute>  and<signed>  especially when they appear together should be
>> wrapped in<opener>/<closer>;
>>
>> 2.<salute>  contains text that addresses another person respectively the
>> greeting expression while<signed>  represents the writing person;
>>
>> 3. if (2.) is valid, the use of<name>  inside<signed>  would be very
>> much recommended?
>>
>> The *quintessential* examples would be for<signed>
>>
>> <signed>Thine to command
>>   <name type="person">Humph. Moseley</name>
>> </signed>
>>
>> and
>>
>> <closer>
>>   <signed>I am your most humble servant
>>    <name>Joseph Wanton Jr</name>
>>   </signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>> rather than
>>
>> <closer>
>>   <salute>I am your most humble servant</salute>
>>   <signed>Joseph Wanton Jr</signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>>
>> For<salute>
>>
>> <closer>
>>   <salute>Dear sir,</salute>
>>   <signed>your most obedient servant,
>>    <name>J. Smith</name>
>>   </signed>
>> </closer>
>>
>>
>> Any objections (especially from the Correspondence SIG) to that summary?
>> Would that qualify for a SourceForge ticket?
>>
>> 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/
>>
>> iD8DBQFMiea6q4nZEP2KS4QRAg5gAJ4ij51wgUog6PfpddWlqMICzgW0gACghuWV
>> GzViZWcQFdd+YwOGS7VDK2Y=
>> =tXvJ
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

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

12