#696 macro.paraContent doesn't contain l

[Hugh A. Cayless]

If macro.paraContent contains <lg>, shouldn't it also contain <l>, which doesn't have to occur in an <lg>?

[James Cummings]

I have a vague recollection of Council debating this at some point and specifically deciding that paragraphs can contain metrical lines but that these should always be grouped inside a 'lg'. I do not remember the rational for this at the moment and we can certain revisit this. I believe this discussion took place when we added lg to paraContent.

[Martin Holmes]

This is one relevant ticket:

http://sourceforge.net/p/tei/bugs/409/

[Martin Holmes]

And there's also a brief discussion here:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/pipermail/tei-council/2012/015570.html

[James Cummings]

Raleigh F2F 2014-11-18 claimed: This ticket appears to be submitted only the basis of symmetry, not a real use-case, so although it might be logical, we can reject it unless or until there’s a real demonstrated need. Especially since it brings up again the controversial addition of LG to P.;

Asking Hugh to re-open with real uses cases.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Well, here's an example from my talk at the annual meeting:

<app xml:id="app-lem-l15-l16">
  <lem>
    <surplus reason="interpolation">
      <l n="15" xml:id="l15">Alphesiboea suos ulta est pro coniuge fratres,</l>
      <l n="16" xml:id="l16">sanguinis et cari vincula rupit amor.</l>
    </surplus>
 </lem>
</app>

The editor brackets these lines as having been interpolated from elsewhere. It's the lines, not their content, that are surplus. Poems don't always have line groups, but this sort of markup seems a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. And one can easily imagine doing the same thing with other transcriptional elements, like add, or del, or damage, etc.

[Hugh A. Cayless]

Re-opened with example

[James Cummings]

Use case seems reasonable to me. On reflection, I could be convinced of this.

[James Cummings]

This is already done. Closing ticket.