Div/@type="figure" was killed in 2011. For ostensibly good reasons, it was replaced with <facsimile>
, but the latter doesn't actually square well with some of the ways we may want to publish inscriptions or papyri. What if we want a section of our document that presents (or links to) and discusses images of the original?
A current issue I'm facing in papyri.info with APIS is the desire to link to a page elsewhere that handles all the image presentation. Where should I put such a link, since I can't have a div dedicated to it anymore, and <facsimile>
wants me to slice my document up into <surface>
s?
Suggestions that don't involve lazarene resurrection:
<note>
s or<figDesc>
s, which can contain all sorts of content including<bibl>
) in an unstructured way in<facsimile>
, which doesn't actually require breaking the document up into surfaces;<div type="bibliography" subtype="photographs">
.<div type="commentary" subtype="images">
or similar.(All of the above attested, btw, not just pulled out of my hat. I'm guessing (2) might be the best bet for APIS, since it would gel nicely with HGV...?)
Correcting a mistake hardly constitutes re-animation :-). We don't really follow the Birnbaum Doctrine in EpiDoc, but possibly we should...
I'm confused about your number 1, Do you mean putting that stuff in facsimile/front? That seems like cheating. So do 2 and 3, to be honest. 2 being possibly the least bad option (but HGV does not do this, they still have
<div type="figure">
, at least in papyri.info).I think we threw the baby out with the bath water on this one. Facsimile is great for structured linking of images to text, but that doesn't cover everything we're likely to have.
Discussed with HC and GB. Closing:
<div type="figure">
will not be reinstated; however, note the alternative to<facsimile>
developed by DCLP: [#121].Related
Request Features:
#121