[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: csprd01-17: Structure and Structural Elements: <sm> <em> justification
Hi Jörg, > The annotation elements <sm> and <em> are just specialized cases of the > <mrk> element. Since they don't add any additional value to the inline > annotation markup, they could be subsumed under <mrk>. Therefore, a justification > of their existence would be most valuable. The reason for <sm> and <em> elements to exist is the same as for <sc> and <ec> compared to <pc>: It's to allow overlapping elements. For example when you have some metadata applied to a content across two sentences, and then the content is segmented or marked up with some other overlapping metadata. We went back and forth between this solution and duplicating <mrk>, and the pros/cons favored using <sm>/<em> at the end. As for justifying those elements: there is a link in their definition to the Annotation section where, I think, it's explained there in details. Do you think some additional text is needed in the <sm> and <em> section? Maybe another link to the section "Splitting Annotations"? Cheers, -yves
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]