You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Dear all, I was checking if the issue was already raised and stumbled upon #23 (comment)
make the @hand attribute available on <app>, <hi>, and <emph>
This seems not to have happened, at least in <emph>, @hand is not allowed.
So I ask for @hand to be allowed in <emph>. We want to use it the same way as @hand in <hi>, i.e. when another scribe is highlighting text (by underlining it for example), either as a more "typographical" sign (<hi>) or as a stronger emphasis, hence we need <emph> also.
In the same direction I want to ask for @hand to be allowed in <dateline>, following up on a discussion started by Denise Jurst-Görlach here https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;d9f6e911.2403. There was no opposition on the list, on the contrary. So this also, as the previous request here, should not be problematic.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Save the slippery slope argument, and my misgivings about using @hand to signify the scribe who provided the highlighting of the content, rather than wrote the content, I see no reason not to have @hand on either <dateline> or <emph>.
Dear all, I was checking if the issue was already raised and stumbled upon #23 (comment)
This seems not to have happened, at least in
<emph>
,@hand
is not allowed.So I ask for
@hand
to be allowed in<emph>
. We want to use it the same way as@hand
in<hi>
, i.e. when another scribe is highlighting text (by underlining it for example), either as a more "typographical" sign (<hi>
) or as a stronger emphasis, hence we need<emph>
also.In the same direction I want to ask for
@hand
to be allowed in<dateline>
, following up on a discussion started by Denise Jurst-Görlach here https://listserv.brown.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=TEI-L;d9f6e911.2403. There was no opposition on the list, on the contrary. So this also, as the previous request here, should not be problematic.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: