raffazizzi
commented
14 years ago I agree that this could potentially be rephrased. I think the intent behind the warning is that it is for wholly separate texts embedded in the host text , rather than caring whether that wholly embedded text is originally fragmentary or not. That is, if you are just quoting a bit of text (however long) then the various q/quote elements are appropriate. If you are embedding a text (or I would argue possible a full division of text) where you've included it in full but it itself is frgmentary, then floatingText still seems appropriate. If I now quoted the 3rd paragraph from the 1st chapter of the TEI P1 guidelines here, then that is quote. If I verbatim included the whole chapter as a for of embedded text that would be floatingText, if the sole surviving copy of TEI P1 chapter 1 only had the first two-thirds of it, then that would still be floatingText. At least that has always been my understanding of it, others mileage may very.
-James
Original comment by: jamescummings
Section 4.3.2 (#DSFLT) says, "The floatingText element should only be used for complete texts which form a part of the text being encoded." Why the prohibition against using this element for incomplete portions of texts? Is it because it's too hard to draw a line between a whole text and a few words in order to decide at what point your encoding warrants inclusion use of <floatingText> instead of just <q>?
By prohibiting its use when encoding all but a complete text, we make it impossible to encode the structure of a quoted text beyond elements available within <quote>. You can't encode various epistolary elements (dateline, salutation, etc.), title page elements, or other things available only within floatingText.
By analogy, we trust people to decide when to use
<rs>John Smith</rs>
and when to use
<rs> <persName> <forename>John</forename> <surname>Smith</surname> </persName> </rs>
so I think we can trust them to use <floatingText> only when warranted.
Original comment by: kshawkin