Re: type attribute in p

I don’t think so. I think of <argument>  as a summary of what follows. A Gnomon article might have the following sequence of paragraphs, where upper and lower case distinguish the different types:

PPPpPppPPp etc

I’m sure I’ve seen this elsewhere. The author sends the signal: “you can skip this paragraph, but it’s part of a continuous argument.” You could of course encode it, using @rend or @rendition. But a @type attribute might be a better way of articulating this discursive structure, and you could derive particular layout instructions from the structural encoding.  

On 4/12/17, 12:07 PM, "TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list on behalf of Martin Holmes" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

    This rather sounds like it might be a job for <argument>:
    
    <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.tei-2Dc.org_release_doc_tei-2Dp5-2Ddoc_en_html_ref-2Dargument.html&d=DwICaQ&c=yHlS04HhBraes5BQ9ueu5zKhE7rtNXt_d012z2PA6ws&r=rG8zxOdssqSzDRz4x1GLlmLOW60xyVXydxwnJZpkxbk&m=FXRw3zJHKvtQOXEKltpN_laj_RInMXBzcdv1PnglcCY&s=ArhMNH3Tk8ixBDtg8zBAzuPqb6vdxFjXXWPsylhv0BU&e= >
    
    Cheers,
    Martin
    
    On 2017-04-12 11:04 AM, Martin Mueller wrote:
    > I just stumbled an earlier thread about a @type attribute for <p> , and
    > there was a question about use cases. Here is one I can think of right
    > away. In the days long ago, when I regularly thumbed the Classics review
    > journal Gnomon, I always appreciated reviews that had a main argument in
    > larger type and subsidiary stuff in smaller type.  So you could read the
    > whole thing or skip the fine print. You could  model the fine print
    > stuff as inline notes, but I think of notes as bits of text that sit
    > explicitly outside the text stream, while the alternation of paragraphs
    > in Gnomon stays within a sequential reading order.
    >
    >
    >