Thinking quickly about the BM inscription that was raised as the example, and the ways in which <trailer> gets used in TEI, I'm not sure it actually carries the same semantic meaning as what we have on the stone. Based on the examples I've seen, <trailer> suggests a very particular convention of (especially) print and manuscript books, as opposed to the way that we conceptualize epigraphic texts and editorially present them. My instinct, then, is that we normally would not want <trailer> in the main EpiDoc schema; however, as @ellimylonas mentioned, it might make more sense to be a project-by-project customization.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I would reject this feature request, but I am working on more robust examples and documentation of a chained ODD allowing customization of EpiDoc to allow features such as this at a local level. (In fact I'll use <trailer>, <restore>, @evidence='formula' and @reason='illegible' as examples in this doc.) I have opened a new ticket at [feature-requests:#137] to keep better track of this.
Consensus to close this issue as "not accepted." Note link to FR above which aims to eventually document and give detailed directions for alternative solution.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is more often found in manuscripts than in inscriptions. Should it be added as a customization by an individual project?
I'm thinking of it as an appropriate way of dealing with something like the last line of British Museum 1756,0101.1126.
(I've also lost track of where the debate went over whether we're allowed to use EpiDoc for manuscripts, but that's my own problem …)
What a neat inscription. Not sure how to handle the last line. It is a type of trailer.
Thinking quickly about the BM inscription that was raised as the example, and the ways in which
<trailer>gets used in TEI, I'm not sure it actually carries the same semantic meaning as what we have on the stone. Based on the examples I've seen,<trailer>suggests a very particular convention of (especially) print and manuscript books, as opposed to the way that we conceptualize epigraphic texts and editorially present them. My instinct, then, is that we normally would not want<trailer>in the main EpiDoc schema; however, as @ellimylonas mentioned, it might make more sense to be a project-by-project customization.Bump -> Future
I would reject this feature request, but I am working on more robust examples and documentation of a chained ODD allowing customization of EpiDoc to allow features such as this at a local level. (In fact I'll use
<trailer>,<restore>,@evidence='formula'and@reason='illegible'as examples in this doc.) I have opened a new ticket at [feature-requests:#137] to keep better track of this.Related
Request Features: #137
I am also for not adding this, which can be added in a chained ODD
Consensus to close this issue as "not accepted." Note link to FR above which aims to eventually document and give detailed directions for alternative solution.
See this thread on MARKUP for discussion and reference to older document by Lou Burnard on chaining ODDs: https://lsv.uky.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1910&L=MARKUP&P=4911