[osis-core] <hi> types

[Todd Tillinghast]

Troy,

I think <hi> and xml:whitespace fall into two different categories.  I
think the discussion to date points away from the need for
xml:whitespace.

Todd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: osis-core-admin@bibletechnologieswg.org [mailto:osis-core-
> admin@bibletechnologieswg.org] On Behalf Of Troy A. Griffitts
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:32 PM
> To: osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> Subject: Re: [osis-core] <hi> types
> 
> So does that mean we intend to honor the xml:whitespace="preserve"
> attributed suggested by W3C?
> 
> Patrick Durusau wrote:
> > Harry,
> >
> > Harry Plantinga wrote:
> >
> >>> I am concerned that encoders using would use the presentation
related
> >>> elements RATHER THAN other elements.  (Ex <hi
> >>> type='smallCaps'>Lord</hi> rather than <divineName
> >>> type='yhwh'>Lord</divineName>, etc...)
> >>>
> >>> I do see a need for <hi> in non-Biblical texts.  If as Chris
suggests
> >>> we use <hi> to encode meaning and not presentation we will be
better
> >>> off. I would like to say away from type values of bold, italics,
> >>> etc... in favor of strongEmphasis, emphasis, etc...  I don't have
a
> >>> good suggestions for a comprehensive set of a type values.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've seen this debate many times before and usually it is not
> >> settled to everyone's satisfaction. However, it is clear that
> >> there are times when italics, bold, etc. will be present in a text
and
> >> will not be representable in any OSIS markup apart
> >> from something like <hi type="bold">.
> >>
> > Say its not so, Harry! ;-)
> >
> >> It is also clear to me that 95% of the time encoders are going
> >> to be unwilling to go through an old book and figure out
> >> what each instance of italicized text means when there is
> >> <hi type="italics"> available that meets 95% of people's usage
> >> needs.
> >>
> >> That is, everyone has a threshhold at which they say "I just
> >> mean italics, darnit!" but if italics is an available markup
> >> option, it'll be used much more than some will find desirable.
> >>
> >> But if there is no way of marking some text as 'italics', OSIS will
> >> not be usable for quick-and-dirty conversion of
> >> texts from one markup to another -- only for very laborious,
> >> hand-tuned markup. If that's what you want, go for it!
> >>
> >
> > I think Harry has the right of it, reluctantly, but I do. Getting
large
> > amounts of texts into some semblance of reasonable markup is
difficult
> > enough without insisting on practices that most encoders either
aren't
> > capable of following or won't. At best the material is unmarked
> > altogether, at worse they don't use the markup system at all.
> >
> > I would go with Chris's suggestion of common names, such as italic,
> > bold, etc., (yea, verily, presentation language) rather than less
> > intuitive alternatives.
> >
> > Actually we could begin to build NLP software with knowledge bases
of
> > terms, names, etc., that would allow some automated upgrading of
less
> > complex encoding.
> >
> > Hope everyone is having a great day!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >> -Harry
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> osis-core mailing list
> >> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> >> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osis-core mailing list
> osis-core@bibletechnologieswg.org
> http://www.bibletechnologieswg.org/mailman/listinfo/osis-core