From nfinke1@cinci.rr.com Fri Sep 21 12:00:57 2001
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:58:25 -0400
From: Nicholas Finke <nfinke1@cinci.rr.com>
To: Lou Burnard <lou.burnard@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>,
     Steven J. DeRose <Steven_DeRose@brown.edu>
Cc: Syd Bauman <Syd_Bauman@brown.edu>
Subject: Ch 6

Hi,

Sorry this is so close to the  line (I think I am working on Hawaiian time
here) but here goes:

Chapter 6:
General Comments:

1.  The typographical conventions are not sufficiently clear and do not go
far enough.  The decision not to highlight element names if they occur in
the text without brackets creates confusion.  The same thing applies to
attribute names.  I can appreciate that the text seems overrun with
highlighting already, but I think you stopped short of clarity.

2.  It may be that somewhere in the Guidelines there is a comprehensive
treatment (with definitions) of phrase-level elements, chunk-level elements,
inter-level elements, and so forth. The closest thing to this that I found
is the second paragraph in 6.1.  The way it is now, the element classes are
referred to frequently, but the treatment seems to assume that the reader
knows what you are talking about.  Very annoying when one doesn't.

Particular Comments.

Page 108: 

paragraph 4, 4th line  -- space needed between "section" and "6.3.3".  At
first I suspected this missing space might just be a stylesheet problem, but
it only happens occasionally.

Paragraph 5, For some reason the sections are listed out of order.  There
seems to be no reason why 6.4.2 can't be put in its place rather than at the
end.

Page 109:

6.1, paragraph 4 -- The example "<p>" uses a serif font.  It seems that when
the elements are listed (see bottom of page 112) they are seriffed but when
occurring in the text with brackets the font is sans-serif.  Why? Confusing.

The last line on the page contains the tag <q direct="unspecified">.  Is
there any reason why "unspecified" is the default value of this attribute?
In almost every example that you give in this chapter, the value is
"unspecified".  It really junks up the tagging and makes examples much
harder to read, without adding any real value.   I imagine that in some
texts the distinction is necessary, but usually it isn't.

Page 110:

6.2, paragraph 1, line 3 -- Should read "see Chapter 4".

6.2, paragraph 2, line 4 -- Should be a space in "and 6.4.3"

6.2, paragraph 2, last line - I can find no trace of the file "teipunc2" in
chapter 37.

Page 111;

Third full paragraph, last line -- should read "section 6.3.3"

6.3.1, indented paragraph -- I believe this is a footnote that has lost its
way.  

Page 112:

6.3.2, at bottom of page -- The elements type, time, etc. are listed here
and then treated at length beginning on 114.  There seems to be no reason to
list them here, except that you get to use words like "diachronically" and
defer the (absolutely necessary) explanations for two pages.  This gave me
an instant inferiority complex, because I felt that I ought to know what
these words meant.  Perhaps a simple cross-reference to the treatment later
would be enough.  Or you could leave the list out here, it serves no
purpose.

Page 113:

6.3.2.1, passim -- <foreign> is in a font that seems to be many points
larger than necessary.  This is part of the bracket/no bracket/serif/sans
serif element name problem earlier mentioned.

6.3.2.1 paragraph 3 -- I believe there is too much here.  The text beginning
at" [continued in 6.3.2.1: ]" and ending with "Terms, glosses, etc.]" should
be omitted.

Page 114

6.3.2.2, paragraph 3 -- There is another wandering footnote here, I believe.

6.3.2.3, paragraph 2 -- Another note.

Page 116

6.3.3, paragraph 1 -- The lack of differentiation for element names without
brackets means that this paragraph has to be read several times.  There
should be a better explanation of soCalled, perhaps with examples.

Page 117:

6.3.3, paragraph 4 -- The type attribute on <q> has the value "speech".  In
Chapter 35 in the entry for <q> at page 795, the value in the formal list is
"spoken" while the example given further down the page is "speech" (as
here).   

Page 118:

6.3.3, First line of page.  There is an orphaned </l> tag at the top of the
page.

6.3.3 paragraph 2 -- There is a fourth solution, I believe.  In some cases
in the very non-literary materials I have encoded (such as the Annual Report
of the United Nations Economic and Social Council)  there are quotations
that have a very sophisticated structure of their own and that go on for
pages.  An example is a report of a meeting that incorporates one or more
very long resolutions verbatim.  The only way we found to code this was to
insert a <text> element within the <q> element which allowed us to begin
life anew structure-wise.

Page 120:

6.3.5 --The examples here are good.  The source text needs to use a larger
font.  It should be the same size as the encoded text.  The use of a serf
font for the source text and a sans-serif font for the encoded text works
well here. 

Page 124:

6.4.3, paragraph at bottom -- The text sets out the "fullest form" of
<measure>  with 3 components: number, unit of measure, commodity measured.
The first example should be one that follows this analysis, rather than the
one given that is only partial.

Page 129

6.5.1, paragraph 2 -- the font of the example should be larger.

Page 130:

6.5.1, paragraph 1 -- In the example, the values of the resp attributes are
lower case in one and upper case in the other.  I believe that they should
be harmonized to prevent inexperienced readers from trying to find a meaning
for the difference.

Page 131:

6.5.2 -- The note in the first paragraph should be placed where it belongs
and the example in the fourth paragraph should be in a larger font.

I have to stop for a while.  I have to go to teach and move stuff to our new
house.  I have more to send.

Nick

