[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
For your case or all applications of XML?
Because attributes can't have structure and attributes are
all one has in an empty tag for adding content beyond the
tag name. Some texts do have structure. There are other
reasons but that one is the show stopper.
I may have missed your point.
Examples of your scheme for tagging these texts would
be helpful.
len
From: Dean Snyder [mailto:dean.snyder@jhu.edu]
I just joined this list so pardon me if this topic has been dealt with
before, but it is something I have been pondering for some time and about
which I would like expert feedback.
I work with ancient texts in multiple languages, including cuneiform
tablets, inscriptions, parchment and papyri manuscripts. Converting these
texts to XML form presents messy problems because they exhibit rampantly
overlapping hierarchies:
* single graphemes split across line boundaries;
* character effacements occurring randomly in the texts, across lines,
cases, columns, and facets;
* discontiguous parsing information;
An on and on.
My question is why not just use empty tags for everything? And if that
works why have non-empty tags at all? (I'm aware of the argument for XML
parsing simplicity.)
One of my main concerns is data archivability and recoverability, even
data fragment recoverability. For these reasons I want metadata that is
human readable, inline, and practically self-documenting.
|
