Re: div and p

On 13/01/17 13:36, Martin Holmes wrote:
> On 2017-01-13 12:49 AM, Dominique Mee ùs wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:32:23 +0100, Marjorie Burghart
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> … but I REALLY do not want my little paragraph to have a title -
>>> that would be against all conventions of Western typography.
>>
>> But for you to consider this paragraph as something else than 
>> just
>> the next paragraph of the last div, there must have been some 
>> Western
>> typographical sign for this. It maybe some decoration like an
>> asterism ⁂ (U+2042) or significantly more white space than usual.
>> This decoration or this extra white space means: “Beware, the
>> following paragraph is a some kind of conclusion or 
>> transition.” This
>> is nearly a title. You could there begin a new div with head 
>> element
>> containing the asterism or other decoration, or some no break 
>> spaces
>> (U+00a0). Is this cheating with a workaround? To me it seems 
>> (nearly)
>> semantically honest.
>
> The assumption that there must be some typographical feature 
> that signals the structural organization seems a risky one to 
> me. Perhaps the structure is inherent in the textual content or 
> the argumentation alone?

If there were such a typographical mark then I would certainly 
consider what follows as being in another division. However, I do 
not think it is necessary and will happily wrap divisions around 
things that have no such textual or typographical indications, 
merely because I think they should be in a separate division.  
I'm certainly less theoretically rigorous in my use of it than 
some would like.

To look back at Paul Schaffner's examples in each case the 
concluding material seems to identify itself as such and I would 
wrap in a <div type="conclusion"> without a heading if I were 
editing those texts.  (Indeed I might even give it such a heading 
and supply it.)

-James

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