That's exactly what I meant! But you expressed it with the right words.
There are two main problems though.
The firs one is related to the fact that every style can be so particular to need a very specific terminology for its description.
Secondly, the danger is that different projects, departing from TEI guidelines, develop their own extensions, creating another variety of terms that will add to the huge variety already evident in the traditional literature.
Arianna Ciula On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:36:24 -0600 Murray McGillivray mmcgilli@ucalgary.ca wrote:
Arianna:
"can be described" meant "can be described using words and images," not "can be described using special-purpose tags." The thing that would be most helpful, actually, is a universally accepted "controlled vocabulary" for paleographic description, either verbal or in terms of graphical metrics (or ideally both), on which we could build descriptive structures in XML or whatever. I don't think paleographers are close to having that.
Murray
Arianna Ciula wrote:
So, when you say "where each glyph used in the manuscript including ligatures or junctures (sorted by hand and script) can be described, linked to a typical image or more and a transcription and transliteration"
what do you mean for "can be described"?
dm-l mailing list dm-l@uleth.ca http://listserv.uleth.ca/mailman/listinfo/dm-l
---------------------- Arianna Ciula arianna.ciula@kcl.ac.uk