Open gerritbruening opened 1 year ago
"Typographic" is clearly incorrect. "Topographic" must be metaphorical, and maybe there's a specialist use of the term to describe writing on a surface. But it's a metaphor that's never explained that I can see. I'd favor getting rid of it, or replacing it with something clearer.
"Typographic" is only incorrect if you are talking about non print materials, surely. The point there is to distinguish a typographic line from e.g. a metrical line. As for "topographic" I don't see why you think it's metaphorical or unclear. The Guidelines say "Within a zone the transcription may be organized topographically in terms of lines of writing, using the line element, or in terms of further nested zones, or as a combination of the two" . And a random online Oxford dictionary defines "topoographical" as "relating to the arrangement or accurate representation of the physical features of an area". Which seems exactly right here. So maybe what needs revision is the discussion of what <lb/>
means.
I agree with @lb42; this distinction seems intentional, apt, and accurate.
1) Yes, but <lb/>
is a perfectly usable element in encoding non-print materials, so calling it "typographic" doesn't add anything. And might make people think it isn't appropriate for non-typographic texts.
2) "Topographical" features of a text implies the text is like a map (there's our metaphor) and the markup is like (e.g.) contour lines. And that's a reasonable analogy, but I'd prefer we either explain it more clearly or stop using it.
The wording of the elements' definitions of
lb
andline
slightly differ:Assuming that this is not intended, but historical, I would like to suggest the following: