Re: div and p

On 12/01/17 15:33, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
> And … what are the typographic signals that indicate that the
> paragraphs in question are part of the higher-level division but
> not part of the immediately preceding subdivision, and not part
> of a new subdivision of its own?

I tend to agree with you in this recurrent discussion.  None of 
the examples I've seen convince me that they are not additional 
sub-divisions (perhaps without a head) or part of a new division 
(also maybe without a head).  In Lou's Canterbury tale-esque 
example I would say that a that the prologue and comments after 
are both separate sub-divisions (as is the body of the tale) to a 
division consisting of 3 child divs.

In Marjorie's case I think the problem is not that her extra 
concluding paragraph isn't a new division or some section, but 
that she doesn't want it signalled with a heading.  With Paul's 
examples I would choose solution 1 or 4 depending on whether I 
thought they were a concluding subdivision (sans heading) or a 
separate section (sans heading).

There are plenty of texts that one might break into sections and 
divisions not because of typographical aspects of the text, but 
the content of it.  I don't necessarily see a direct relationship 
between an intellectual division and the format of how something 
originally appeared on a bit of scrapped animal skin or the side 
of a pot.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford, 
TEI Consultations: [email protected]