From Julia_Flanders@brown.edu Wed Sep 19 10:56:51 2001
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:04:37 -0400
From: Julia Flanders <Julia_Flanders@brown.edu>
To: editors@tei-c.org
Subject: TEI correx, chapters 7 and 10

Dear Lou and Steve,

I've finished proofreading/copyediting/checking the 2 TEI chapters 
and I think the best way to send my corrections along is in email; if 
you like I can fax them to you as well, but I'm not sure how legible 
the result will be. A great many of the corrections are probably 
style-sheet errors rather than typos, so they may be describable as a 
set rather than as individuals.

I'm going to first list the things which seem to be globally wrong, 
and then go through each chapter separately.

Global fixes:

1. The use of single versus double quotes in the body text is 
inconsistent; some words are scare-quoted with double quotes and some 
with single. I don't know whether this is just a style sheet setting 
that differs between, say, <mentioned>, <term>, and other encoding, 
or whether these quotes are present as PCDATA (horrors!). I think 
they should all be double but that's because I'm from the US.

<!-- the problem is in the markup: we seem to be using <q> where we
should be using <mentioned> or <socalled> -->

2. The use of single versus double quotes in the DTD fragments also 
looks inconsistent to me, but I understand the guiding principles in 
this case less well, so I merely draw it to your attention

3. However, it does seem wrong/odd to me that there should be curly 
quotes in the DTD fragments and examples. The double quotes are OK, 
but the straight quotes in most cases are curly. Perhaps it's just 
that they are apostrophes and that in the chosen font these are curly 
rather than straight, but they look very strange--see for instance in 
the first DTD fragment in Chapter 10, where "INCLUDE" is enclosed in 
two right curly quotes. And all of the examples in Chapter 7 use 
single curly quotes for attribute values, whereas Chapter 10 uses 
straight double quotes (with a few exceptions).

4. I think the text would be clearer if element names were 
distinguished renditionally  from the rest of the text. In most cases 
it's clear (particularly to someone familiar with TEI) when the text 
is referring to an element and when it's referring to a textual 
feature, but there are some cases where a possible ambiguity makes 
you have to stop and reread. Also, since attribute names and values 
are distinguished renditionally, consistency would be good. The 
former edition's practice of making element names bold and enclosing 
them  in angle brackets seemed to work well. I apologize for 
belaboring this point if it is a non-issue.

<!-- formatting problem: fixed -->

5. There seem to be spacing problems around chapter titles and 
section numbers when they are cited in the body of the text. These 
vary a bit, so I don't know if it's a formatting problem or a typo. 
The most frequent problems are missing space between "section" and 
the section number (e.g. p. 210, end of the 4th body para), and extra 
space following the chapter title (e.g. p. 210, end of 4th body para).

<!-- formatting problem: not yet fixed -->

6. Quotation of attribute values is inconsistent; sometimes they are 
left unquoted; sometimes they are quoted with single and sometimes 
with double quotes.

<!-- they should never be unquoted! -->


Chapter 7:

p. 170, first para: insert hyphen between "high level" (adjectival 
use should be hyphenated)

OK

p. 170, element definition of <front>: currently reads "...found 
before the start of the text proper". This could be a bit misleading, 
since 'text' is a term of art in this section (defined as containing 
<front>)--maybe better to phrase it "...found before the start of the 
main body  [part?] of the text".

Have tried rewording


p. 172, first full paragraph: "To cater for..." --this is a British 
usage; perhaps better to use a term like "To allow for" or "To 
accommodate".

<!-- I'll have to take on trust your assertion that this perfectly ordinary
dead metaphor is markedly British, in the absence of an American
National Corpus! Have changed to "Because of..."
-->

<!-- at this point in annotating, I decided to switch conventions! -->

>p. 172, last full paragraph: "Note that end-tags are mandatory for 
>un-numbered divisions..."--isn't this true universally for XML? 
>(Later in this para is an example of the spacing problem mentioned 
>above: "section7.1.3")
>

paragraph removed (it's also inconsistent with what's stated at
section 7.1.3)


>
>p. 173, footnote marker 23: there seems to be an extra space between 
>the footnote marker and the previous character; close up space.

fixed, I think

>
>p. 175, what looks like a note or comment: "This example should be 
>checked further"--I'm assuming that this will be suppressed but 
>thought I'd mention it just in case. (Previous para contains two 
>examples of the spacing error described above.)

suppressed

>
>p. 184: Some of the elements need end-tags. Since they're fragmentary 
>and have ellipsis marking this fact, it's  not strictly necessary, 
>but the lack of end-tags is inconsistent; probably better to supply 
>them. The elements in question are the first <p> at the top of p. 
>184, the <head> inside the <div type="address">, and the first <l> 
>after the <epigraph>.
>

Tsk tsk. I dont know how these examples escaped! Fixed now.

>p. 185, example at the bottom of the page and continuing on to page 
>186: this might be easier to read if the comments were aligned with 
>the element they refer to, instead of being uniformly flush left, 
>which obscures the successive indentation and nesting of the elements 
>in the example (this example is one where the nesting of elements is 
>important for understanding the point of the example).

This is a system wide problem for which we are currently in need of a
solution better than hand tweaking...

>
>p. 188, what looks like a note or comment, top of the page: as above, 
>I assume this will be suppressed.

Footnotes not properly tagged in source
>
>p. 188, footnote marker 27: again, space before the footnote marker 
>should be removed.

Ditto

>
>p. 189, example, first <p> element: the word "onyd" looks odd; I 
>don't know that it's wrong, but it might be worth checking.

It's fine. Are you telling me you haven't read the Cloud of
Unknowing????? I'm shocked!

>
>p. 190, what looks like a note or comment, top of the page: This 
>looks more like text to be included in a note, rather than 
>suppressed, but it should be printed at the bottom of the page?
>

Tagging error

>p. 190, para beginning "Together": spacing problem in "chapter22,"

Fixed

>
>p. 191, example at top of page: If the lineation of the transcription 
>is intended to preserve the line  breaks of the original, it would be 
>better to do this explicitly with <lb> elements; it's a little 
>misleading as it stands (since it implies that this is a way to keep 
>this information); it also takes up more space  on the page.

Good points both. I have added the <lb> tags.

>
>p.192, bottom of the page: "list type=gloss", attribute value should be quoted
>

Tagging error (another!)

