[osis-core] <hi> types

[Troy A. Griffitts]

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
>>
> 
>