----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Noring <jon@noring.name> To: gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Final PGTEI run-thru for a while... Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:39:13 -0600
Joshua wrote:
This e-mail concludes the "common" items I want to check in PGTEI.
...
1 - How should we markup poetry indents? In HTML, I use toput two spaces for indents on the text.... *edit* I just found in Marcello's guide that he suggests using as a quad indent. Works for me, unless someone has a different suggestion.
As we've discussed (and argued) before, it is my belief that, except where typography is integral to the poem itself ("poetry as visual art"), that poetry should be marked up in a structural, not presentational, sense. This means text characters should NEVER be used for visual layout purposes -- characters should be used only for representing textual content. Using text characters for layout mucks up usability, repurposeability, CSS styling, and accessibility.
Use XSL*, CSS or other styling language to effect the desired output. End-users will now have more ability to tailor the verse to their particular reading devices. Of course, a non-parsed comment could be added to the markup explaining how the original was typeset for those wishing to try to duplicate the original layout (but then, that's one purpose for having access to the original page scans.)
The big difference here is that the indent spacing in lines of poetry is NOT just presentational. It can and has been argued that the spacing is INTENTIONAL and STRUCTURAL to the poem. Hence, the addition of the leading spaces, either through (non-breaking space) or (quad space). Your example of the layout of the quatrains is purely presentational. They do not provide any structural meaning to the poem, whereas poetry indentions often DO provide structural meaning. I'll let David argue the case further if necessary, as he's been the biggest proponent of poetry indents as structural vs presentational in the DP forum discussions on the subject. Josh