rg@tnoibbc.UUCP (Ruud Grosmann) (10/09/90)
Lately I've been reading much about SGML, but I couldn't find
a definite answer to this question :
Is it, or is it not 'against the intentions of SGML' to include section
numbers, figure numbers a.s.o. in titles and in the text ?
Is it correct, for instance, to write :
<chap><chtitle>1. The history of Belgium</chtitle> .......... </chap>
or
<figcap>figure 4. sales figures of september</figcap>
or
<p> .... see also section 5.3, definitions ..... </p>
From the beginning I believed this is not correct, because the way of
numbering (and the way of referencing) sections, figures, chapters a.s.o.
merely is a matter of appereance of the document. Nevertheless, numbering
sections and chapters is frequently done.
The definition of a chapter in de book DTD of AAP is :
chapternumber? , chaptertitel, {rest of chapter}
=============
B
Am I wrong ? Is AAP right ? Is anybody wrong or right ?
What is YOUR opinion? Who can give the final answer to this question ?
Any reactions are welcome! Tia
Ruud.
--
Ruud Grosmann: TNO - IBBC INTERNET : rg@tnoibbc
: PO-box 49 DOMAIN : rg@ibbc.tno.nl
: 2600 AA Delft FAX : +31 15 843990
: the Netherlands VOICE : +31 15 842021ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (10/10/90)
In article <2168@tnoibbc.UUCP> rg@tnoibbc.UUCP (Ruud Grosmann) writes: >Is it, or is it not 'against the intentions of SGML' to include section >numbers, figure numbers a.s.o. in titles and in the text ? It cannot be against the intentions. SGML is a just tool for text markup. If you decide not to markup certain features it's your choice. >Is it correct, for instance, to write : > ><chap><chtitle>1. The history of Belgium</chtitle> .......... </chap> >or ><figcap>figure 4. sales figures of september</figcap> >or ><p> .... see also section 5.3, definitions ..... </p> Depends on what use you plan for the document. If it is intended to be a literal transcription (ie. a static document), this is one way of ensuring that information isn't altered. If you plan to reuse the information, move things about, change formatting styles, etc, it may not be the best way to go about. >From the beginning I believed this is not correct, because the way of >numbering (and the way of referencing) sections, figures, chapters a.s.o. >merely is a matter of appereance of the document. Nevertheless, numbering >sections and chapters is frequently done. Most people aren't interested in how a chapter is numbered. I'm one of them. The exact method of numbering pages or chapters or figures is (to me) immaterial as long as it doesn't interfere with the reading. Other people, however, may be very keenly interested to know if the page numbers of a book suddenly skipped from 15 to 31, or changed typeface without apparent reason, or if a particular word in a latin text was typeset (or written) in full, or if it used an `abbreviatur' (?sp), if it was misspelled in the original, and all kinds of nitty-gritty things like that. >Am I wrong ? Is AAP right ? Is anybody wrong or right ? > >What is YOUR opinion? Who can give the final answer to this question ? >Any reactions are welcome! Tia I'll try ... What is the *use* of the text? Is it intended to be used for people in the first group described above or people in the second? I think the only measure that can be used here is how well the encoding/markup of the document correponds to the wants/needs of its audience. It's no great fun to read a scolarly edition of, say, The Anatomy of Melancholy or The Cloud of Unknowing, with lots of footnotes about variant readings, scribal errors, unclear passages and the rest of the paraphernalia. That's my personal opinion, of course. I suspect a textual critic might feel equally frustrated by an electronic version of some mediaeval manuscript scrubbed and cleaned of misspellings, abbreviations, etc. -- Anders Thulin ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden