Joe Easterly reports that in Walden, here are many examples of paragraphs which which contain line-groups, but <p> cnnot contain <lg>. Sebastian and I see no reason why <p> shouldn't contain <lg>, given that it can already contain <list>.
I think the simplest way to do this would be to add <lg> to model.inter ("elements which can appear either within or between paragraph-like elements"). Does anyone see any objection to this?
I had a quick look at the start of Walden. Here's a typical example:
But men labor under a mistake. The better part of the man is soon plowed into the soil for compost. By a seeming fate, commonly called necessity, they are employed, as it says in an old book, laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt and thieves break through and steal. It is a fool's life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before. It is said that Deucalion and Pyrrha created men by throwing stones over their heads behind them:—
Inde genus durum sumus, experiensque laborum,
Et documenta damus qua simus origine nati.
Or, as Raleigh rhymes it in his sonorous way,—
"From thence our kind hard-hearted is, enduring pain and care,
Approving that our bodies of a stony nature are."
So much for a blind obedience to a blundering oracle, throwing the stones over their heads behind them, and not seeing where they fell.
But surely the <lg>s here are being quoted? so shouldn't they be inside <quote><lg> rather than just plain <lg> ?
@Lou: This particular example does look like a quote, but I'll ask Joe for some specific examples of what he was talking about. In general, though, I see no reason why a writer should not break into verse in the midst of prose, without its being a quote from another place. Do you?
I see no reason why I might not put
Some lines of verse just sitting here, but
then go back to writing the rest of my paragraph.
This message comes from Joe through me:
My concern is primarily logistical. Often, the Digital Thoreau project
team is not capable of asserting whether an individual line group is a
quotation, based on available research. More advanced editorial issues
-- such as determining the authorship and nature of lines of verse --
will be hopefully addressed by Thoreau scholars later on. I've
provided two excerpts below as examples of our current challenges:
EXCERPT ONE: In "Visitors", paragraph 17, Thoreau constructs a parody
of a well known nursery rhyme. In the example below, we're not sure if
it really a quote--since it is his own parody. Is Thoreau quoting
himself? Is his parody a work which stands apart from "Walden", and
thus should have a referenced-like relationship that <quote> implies?
Or is it a parody that Thoreau created solely for inclusion in this
paragraph in Walden?
" ... A man sits as many risks as he runs. Finally, there were the
self-styled reformers, the greatest bores of all, who thought that I
was forever singing,—
This is the house that I built;
This is the man that lives in the house that I built;
but they did not know that the third line was,
These are the folks that worry the man
That lives in the house that I built.
I did not fear the hen-harriers, for I kept no chickens; but I feared
the men-harriers rather. ..."
EXCERPT TWO: In "Sounds" paragraph 13, Thoreau inserts a poem of his
own creation into the second-to-last sentence. Again, I'm not (yet)
sure if this poem was intended to stand alone, or was created solely
for the purpose of inclusion in Walden:
"... They will slink back to their kennels in disgrace, or perchance
run wild and strike a league with the wolf and the fox. So is your
pastoral life whirled past and away. But the bell rings, and I must
get off the track and let the cars go by;—
What’s the railroad to me?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing,
but I cross it like a cart-path in the woods. I will not have my eyes
put out and my ears spoiled by its smoke and steam and hissing."
I think Joe's examples are convincing, and I'd like to go ahead with the proposed solution (add lt to model.inter). Can anyone see any objection, or possible undesirable side-effects?
I agree that we should allow it, whether or not the Walden examples eventually use this or <q>. My worry is that just adding <lg> to model.inter will blow something up, but thats a technical detail to overcome.
It's not a question of whether or not Thoreau is actually quoting here -- it's that he is presenting something which stands in the same relation to the surrounding text as a quotation would, i.e. it's what Martin M would call a floating grapenut (or something).
I remain of the opinion that <p>s cannot contain <p>s, and that <lg>s (or for that matter an <l>s) are structurally identical to <p>s and shouldn't therefore be contained by a <p> unless wrapped in a <q> to signal the fact they intrude in some way. But I expect to lose this argument...
um. <lg> is structurally equivalent to <p>, but <table> and <figure> and <biblStruct> and <list> are not? I expect to win this argument :-}
Made two attempts to carry out this ticket by adding <lg> to model.inter, the second time removing the explicit mentiion of <lg> from the content model of <head>, but we still end up with a non-deterministic content model (the second time in <body>). This is going to take a bit of thought...
The core problem here is that <lg> is already a member of model.divPart, which "does not include members of the model.inter class, which can appear either within or between paragraph-level items. " Having it as a member of both model.divPart and model.inter would seem to be impossible. It may be that we have to add <lg> directly to the content model of <p>, as has been done with <head> and <sp> already. Does anyone have an alternative suggestion?
In rev 10851 I've added <lg> to macro.paraContent. P5-Test builds OK with this. I think it's the best approach that will actually work.