Reflective Essay


Reflective Essay




            In ‘Digital Methods: Five Challenges’ Bernhard Rieder and Theo Röhle present the idea that digital outputs are only as good as the questions, assumptions and models that inform them.[1] This implies a critical approach to any worth-while digital output so that its interests and limitations can be considered when thinking about its usefulness and reliability. It is the interests and limitations of this project that I intend to address in this essay.
The aim of the project was to make available an electronic scholarly edition of one of the lesser known of Daniel Defoe’s works, A Hymn to the Pillory. The website has been developed on the basis that it will be an open access resource used by students, interested members of the public and even possibly scholars, in researching A Hymn to the Pillory. This focus for the project has engaged an interest in accessibility, both technologically and in terms of using the resource; longevity, so that it can continue to be used if and when the technology that supports it change; and intellectual integrity, meaning that as a scholarly edition the choices that have gone into the presentation of information are all intellectually defensible. These are interests that C.M. Sperberg-McQueen considers fundamental to electronic scholarly editions.[2]


A Rationale for A Hymn to the Pillory

            As a result of choosing Daniel Defoe, a canonical author, as the author whose work I wanted to present, I thought that the most valuable choice of text for this edition would be a text that has been under-represented within his attributed literature. Being an English Literature undergraduate I focussed on literary works such as his satirical pamphlets and poems rather than his journalistic or trade publications. I became interested in the impact that Defoe's published works had at their time of publication and this led me to The Shortest Way with the Dissenters.
           The Shortest Way with the Dissenters is a work which had a substantial impact at the time of publication and which also had serious consequences for Defoe, as the author. Perhaps due to the notoriety of The Shortest Way with the Dissenters, A Hymn to the Pillory, which criticises the punishment that Defoe received for writing the pamphlet, has been less remarked upon. It represents an excellent example of Defoe’s use of the Pindaric Ode as well as being firmly anchored in the contemporary culture and events of its time. I chose this text as an example of Defoe’s lesser known work, in a form that is not often associated with him and which also is based in its historical moment, which makes it an excellent source for further annotation.

18th Connect: a mutually beneficial partnership

            Having chosen A Hymn to the Pillory as my text I needed to either create or find a digital version of the text that I could use as the basis for the edition. 18th Connect is the site that I used to do this. I created an account with 18th Connect as a way to access a digital version of my text. 18th Connect is a project supported by an NEH grant as well as several American universities. It is an open access resource that aims to make bibliographic information and some facsimiles available, as well as peer reviewing digital projects and acting as a hub for finding scholarly digital projects. The application I was most interested in however was TypeWright. This is a tool that, once registered, allows you to see and correct the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) text generated by programmes such as Gamera. This text is created by computers programmed to recognise typographic marks and translate them into computer readable text that runs behind facsimiles and enables textual searching. However, OCR programmes often misread what is presented in facsimiles, especially of early printed texts, and therefore the text that is created to make searching possible needs to be tidied up by people to make the searches reliable. In return for correcting the OCR, and thereby improving the results of scholarly searching, 18th Connect ‘immediately give the correctly-typed version of that document to the person who corrected it to use as he or she likes.’[3] Once I had corrected the full document I was sent both a .txt and .xml version of A Hymn to the Pillory, which I used as the foundation of the texts to present in this edition. This was beneficial in two ways; firstly, although it is only a limited contribution, I have corrected its OCR for one of the facsimiles of A Hymn to the Pillory. This not only meant that I was sent different format versions of the text, but that I have made a small contribution to improving the electronic resources available for scholarly use. It is rewarding to know that the ECCO facsimile that my text is based on will be more useful because of the work I have done in correcting the OCR. Secondly, the .xml file I received had already been lightly encoded with information about the source. I found this useful in helping to maintain transparency about where the file had come from.

Using the TEI guidelines

            The TEI guidelines have increasingly become the standard for textual encoding in the humanities. This is based on the flexibility of the encoding that the guidelines support and also on longer term interests in the longevity of the work that is encoded. The TEI: History webpage states that ‘the TEI was established in 1987 to develop, maintain, and promulgate hardware- and software-independent methods for encoding humanities data in electronic form.’[4] By basing textual encodings on SGML and later on XML, texts encoded to the TEI guidelines are not dependent on particular types of hardware or particular types of software that run on them. This means that when these ‘current’ hardwares and softwares become obsolete text encoded using TEI XML will still be readable by computers. This is a point that is beautifully demonstrated by McQueen’s assertion that ‘because… the TEI guidelines are not conceived in terms of a particular technology of delivering the text, they will not become unreadable when HyperCard, or Netscape, or DynaText are no longer current software.’[5] A quick look at the relevant Wikipedia entries will tell you that these softwares all went out of business in 2004, 2008 and 2002 respectively.  So in using the TEI guidelines to encode texts in XML they are guaranteed to outlive the software and hardware that supported their encodings. This means that the encoding will be able to be used for further mark up or for computer run data mining for years to come, which is why it was important to include an XML encoded version of the text in my edition.  
            A limitation I encountered of encoding texts with XML is that it works using an Ordered Hierarchy of Content Objects (OHCO), which means that elements used to identify important features of the text are presumed to ‘nest within each other, to have a logical sequence, and not to overlap. But this is not ‘how text really is’.’[6] For instance, a page division (<div>) has a higher place in the hierarchy than a stanza (<lg type=“stanza”>). However stanzas can run across pages and therefore do not always nest comfortably within this hierarchy. This was a problem that I encountered with my own encoding of the text. To resolve this, so that the computer would not read every page division as a new stanza, I numbered the stanzas to create continuity between the pages. Although this was not difficult to resolve, it highlighted one of the differing limitations of paper bound and digital textual carriers.
 I encountered a similar problem whilst encoding the variants. While different textual witness to words within a line didn’t present a problem, where stanza breaks had been omitted and also where several lines had been added the OHCO would not allow the apparatus element (<app>) to nest out side of the line group element (<lg type=“stanza”>). This meant that I could not include parts of the line group in the variation. I have not managed to resolve this issue and as a result my encoding of textual variants is less comprehensive than the variants listed in the textual notes on my site.
            Another potential limitation of encoding a text is working with the attitude that completeness of encoding should be an encoder’s goal. As I learnt how to use the TEI I often wanted to encode all of the new features I had learnt to make my encoding as comprehensive as possible. Having seen an example of encoding rhyming schemes on the TEI by Example website, after I had noticed that the places in the poem that are not in heroic couplets are significant, I started trying to encode all of the rhyming schemes at the end of each line. Firstly, I did not finish because the task was much bigger than I had anticipated and so those encodings have been removed from the final version. Secondly, on deleting what I had encoded I realised that I could have taken a more considered approach to encoding the rhyming schemes; by starting with the significant ones that vary, rather than from the top of the text because I wanted to make a complete encoding of every rhyme, I would have been able to include the ones that are most important and unique. I went back and did this, marking up the triplets. John Lavagnino argues that ‘once we recognise that, even in theory, we cannot encode every feature of our texts, we should see that the choice of important features becomes central to our work. In a limited world, we have to choose to do what matters most.’[7]
            For my own encoding I decided that a priority in the XML version was to encode a complete representation of the information included in the annotation and textual notes. In this way the textual and historical contexts of the work that are presented separately in the online edition can be stored all together in the XML document. As well as including variants and annotations I marked up the basic structural features of the text such as line numbers and stanza breaks, so that the important aspects of the text’s form can be reproduced and understood by a computer. These decisions mean that included in the XML will be part of the historical associations that are so important in making this text as contemporary as it is. Understanding who the people mentioned are and why they are included in Defoe’s Ode helps to decode their significance and some of Defoe’s meaning. By including these annotation notes that information will be saved along side the text that refers to them.
            I included encodings of printing conventions such as catchwords and signatures from the physical document to encode a truthful representation of the markings on the page. I felt that this was important as a way to keep a record of all of the features that were included in the document. In this way a witness is maintained in my electronic version of the markings of previous conventions used to assemble textual carriers. Although these conventions are preserved in their original documents and in facsimiles, encoding them ensures that electronic records maintain a representation of what is part of the history of print culture.
            By focussing what I chose to encode in the XML version of A Hymn to the Pillory I had to make explicit the primary interests of the edition so that I could limit my scope. Lavagnino argues that this ‘should be regarded, however, not as an admission of failure but as a recognition of the true situation of all editions.’[8] By this he means that all editions, through necessity, have to limit the interests that they can reasonably represent, and so in this way all editions are to some degree incomplete and biased towards particular interests. The almost endless scope for encoding documents simply makes this more explicit.


Decentring Authority?

            Most modern scholarly editions of texts work on the basis of editorial interpretation and intervention in creating a definitive or authoritative edition which most closely represents the editor’s understanding of the author’s intentions. These editions are created through extensive use of textual apparatus such as tables of variants and considered reasoning supporting the inclusion of one variant and the exclusion of another. Digital methods of representing texts have brought into sharper focus how this approach to assembling an edition is based largely on limitations of its publication media. It has been noted that

                For some the new technology has prompted the recognition of the prescriptive reasoning behind such editions as no more than a function of the technological limits of the book, less desirable and less persuasive now that the computer makes other possibilities available; namely, multiple distinct textual witnesses assembled in a virtual archive or library of forms.[9]

                By encoding variant readings into my XML document, it was possible to present the different states of the text without privileging one state over another. This destabilises the idea of an ideal or more representative version of a text by presenting each state as equally valid and as existing simultaneously. It can be argued that this also helps us to understand a little better the awareness that contemporary readers of early printed texts had of the ‘degree of uncertainty in the text; our corrected modern editions make it look as if we’re quite certain about what the text is supposed to say, an error no contemporary reader would have made.’[10]
            Although I was able to present variants within my encoding without making any claims as to which witness was more authoritative, this was only achievable within the encoded document. To present the text on the website I had to choose a copy text based on what I considered to be the most complete representation of Daniel Defoe’s intentions in A Hymn to the Pillory. I based my edition of the text on the second edition, corrected with additions. This decision was reached early in the project and was based on the logic that this was the earliest edition available that presented a fuller version of the text. Given the common editorial practice of selecting either the first available edition or the last edition known to have been produced by the author, so that the author’s initial intentions or the latest version of their revised intentions is presented, I would reconsider my choice of copy text if I were to start again. However, despite being an unorthodox approach to a copy text, contemporary editions of A Hymn to the Pillory based on the first edition include the later additions found in the second edition, and given that variants between the two texts have been included, I do not believe that my earlier decision undermines the authority of the text presented in a significantly damaging way.
            This concern would seem to conflict with my encoding of variants. There I have deliberately not identified a lemma and chosen instead to present multiple, simultaneous readings, or witnesses, that destabilise the assumption that there are readings that are more valid. This approach works well if you are concerned with textual criticism or data mining to create distant readings of texts. However, for my edition to be as useful as possible to the widest possible audience, the traditional concern of the humanities with close readings and interpretation of the text had to be considered, which depend on a stable text to interpret. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland acknowledge this, pointing out that ‘the editor’s exercise of proper expertise may be more liberating for more readers than seemingly total freedom of choice.’[11] Although digital technologies are highlighting how text can be treated differently in electronic formats, the primary concern for most readers of humanities literature is still in interpreting the meaning of the text, rather than how it was composed or it’s variant states and to interpret the meaning rather than the textual history a stable edition needs to be presented.
            To support the authority of my edition as a serious scholarly work I have included all of the textual apparatus that you would expect to find in a scholarly print edition. McQueen argues that ‘electronic editions without apparatus, without documentation of editorial principles, and without decent provisions for suitable display are… unacceptable for serious scholarly work.’[12] While this does not necessarily mean that apparatus for digital editions has to work in the same way or with the same concerns as print editions, it situates intellectual integrity as remaining a key concern for supporting the authority of online editions.  
            I have used hyperlinks to discretely point to textual annotations from A Hymn to the Pillory and also in order to direct readers to further online points of interest, either from the annotations themselves, or from further reading. Phillip E. Doss argues that ‘by allowing escape from the context of a single documentary sequence, hypertext allows a reader to escape the linearity imposed by print media.’[13] There are positive and negative implications to the use of hypertext links that I tried to consider within my edition. An obvious limitation of using hypertext is exactly that it allows readers to escape the linearity of the text. A concern I have with my edition is that I wanted the annotations that link from the text to appear in a separate page, however, because the notes page is on the same site it might become confusing having multiple windows open to different pages of the same edition. This could work to allow a reader to escape the linearity of the text more effectively than is useful. However, by using hyperlinks I have been able to provide easy access to extra-textual material that would not be possible to include in a print edition. For instance, where I have been able to find them, I have included works by people that are mentioned in A Hymn to the Pillory. This has meant that intertextual relationships can be explicitly explored, rather than simply acknowledging that they exist. In this way the text is shown to be the product of many various influences in a way that is more difficult to achieve using physical means of publication.
            Although many of my concerns for this project are centred on making visible less well represented texts and questioning what makes a scholarly digital edition authoritative it cannot be ignored that the edition I have created is based on the work of a canonical author. Amy E. Earhart argues that ‘without careful and systematic analysis of our digital canons, we not only reproduce antiquated understandings of the canon but also reify them through our technological imprimatur.’[14] Despite choosing a canonical author I have worked to make available an edition of a text that is not highly visible. Although I have not represented an author who otherwise would not have been available in an online edition or with a TEI XML encoded document for scholarly digital research, I hope that this edition will enable an expanded understanding of the various forms that Daniel Defoe worked in, and illustrate a broader variety of his achievements.
            Lisa Spiro in her essay ‘“This Is Why We Fight”’ argues that ‘for the Digital Humanities, information is not a commodity to be controlled but a social good to be shared and reused.’[15] This is very much an attitude that I have adopted in my approach to this project. Marilyn Deegan and Kathryn Sutherland observe that

                The models so far available for production and dissemination suggest that, where resources are not made freely available, they will be licensed to institutions for bulk fees or accessed through Web subscriptions. This is the situation at the moment and it effectively means that readers or users without institutional affiliation are cut off from many specialist resources.[16]

                This website is open access, making it freely available to anyone who wants to use the information presented. However, although this project is not formally associated with Bath Spa University, as an undergraduate studying at this institution I have had the privilege of institutional access to specialist resources that I otherwise would not have been able to use to support my research. Access to services such as the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and Eighteenth Century Collections Online (ECCO) have allowed me to work using facsimiles of the copy text I used for this edition and research annotation notes for people mentioned in the text with confidence in the reliability and authority of my sources. I have chosen to hyperlink these sites where I have relied upon them for my research to maintain the integrity of my sources. Although this means that some users may not be able to access the sites at the end of the hyperlinks I believe that being able to present information based on what these resources provide goes a small way to democratising the information that they contain. Working with the knowledge that not all users will be able to reference my sources, I have tried to make my annotations as comprehensive as possible while still maintaining a focus to how they are relevant to the text.
             This project has at its core an engaged interest in making specialist information freely available in the most useful, reliable form possible. It has supported ongoing work to make other scholarly resources more reliable for text searching and hopes to engage with the widest possible audience by providing not only what is traditionally expected from an authoritative edition of a text but also incorporating the formats that digital encoding supports for more specialist pursuits. 

           




Bibliography

*I would like to note that articles from Debates in the Digital Humanities were read by me in a paper copy of the book. However, there is an identical open access version, and this is what I have linked to in my bibliography.

Alvarado, Rafael C. ‘The Digital Humanities Situation’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 50-55.

Bogost, Ian. ‘The Turtlenecked Hairshirt’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 241- 242.

Cohen, Daniel J. ‘Introducing Digital Humanities Now’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 322-323.

Cohen, Daniel J. ‘The Social Contract of Scholarly Publishing’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 319-321.

‘Day of DH: Defining the Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 67-71.

Deegan, Marilyn and Sutherland, Kathryn. Transferred Illusions: Digital Technology and the Forms of Print. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. pp 59-88.

Doss, Phillip E. ‘Traditional Theory and Innovative Practice: The Electronic Editor as Poststructuralist Reader’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. pp213-224. 

Earhart, Amy E. ‘Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 309-318.

Edwards, Charlie. ‘The Digital Humanities and Its Users’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 213-232.

Furbank, P.N. and Owens, W.R. ed.  Satire, Fantasy And Writings On The Supernatural By Daniel Defoe. Volume 1London: Pickering & Chatto, 2003.

Fyfe, Paul. ‘Electronic Errata: Digital Publishing, Open Review, and the Futures of Correction’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 259-280.

Gavin, Michael and Smith, Kathleen Marie. ‘An interview with Brett Bobley’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debatesin the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 61-66.

Hall, Gary. ‘Has Critical Theory Run Out of Time for Data-Driven Scholarship?’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 127-132.

Hall, Gary. ‘There Are No Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 133-136.

Kirschenbaum, Matthew. ‘What Is Digital Humanities and What’s It Doing in English Departments?’ In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 3-11.

Lavagnino, John. ‘Completeness and Adequacy in Text Encoding’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. pp 63-76.

Mandell, Laura. Brave New World: A Look at 18th Connect. Early Modern Online Bibliography. 2012. [Online] Available from: http://earlymodernonlinebib.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mandell-fixed-final-oct-2012.pdf. Accessed: 16/05/2013.

Nowviskie, Bethany. ‘Eternal September of the Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 243-246.

Nowviskie, Bethany. ‘What Do Girls Dig?’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 235-240.

Pannapacker, William. ‘Digital Humanities Triumphant?’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 233- 234.

Reider , Bernhard and Röhle, Theo. ‘Digital Methods: Five Challenges’. In: Berry, David M. eds. Understanding Digital Humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012, pp. 67-84.

Rockwell, Geoffrey. ‘Developing Things: Notes toward an Epistemology of Building in the Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 75-84.

Sample, Mark L. ‘What’s Wrong with Writing Essays’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 404-405.

Scheinfeldt, Tom. ‘Sunset for Ideology, Sunrise for Methodology?’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 124-126.

Scheinfeldt, Tom. ‘Where’s the Beef? Does Digital Humanities Have to Answer Questions?’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp56-57.

Scheinfeldt, Tom. ‘Why Digital Humanities is “Nice”’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp59-60.

Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. ‘Textual Criticism and the Text Encoding Initiative’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. pp 37-62.

Spiro, Lisa. '"This Is Why We Fight”: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp16-35.

Svensson, Patrik. ‘Beyond the Big Tent’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. 36-49.

TEI: History. Text Encoding Initiative. [Online] Available from: http://www.tei-c.org/About/history.xml Accessed: 14/05/2013.

Wilkens, Matthew. ‘Canons, Close Reading, and the Evolution of Method’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. pp 249-258.







[1] Reider , Bernhard and Röhle, Theo. ‘Digital Methods: Five Challenges’. In: Berry, David M. eds. Understanding Digital Humanities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. p 73.
[2] Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. ‘Textual Criticism and the Text Encoding Initiative’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. p 41.
[3] Mandell, Laura. Brave New World: A Look at 18th Connect. Early Modern Online Bibliography. 2012. [Online] Available from: http://earlymodernonlinebib.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/mandell-fixed-final-oct-2012.pdf. Accessed: 16/05/2013.
[4] TEI: History. Text Encoding Initiative. [Online] Available from: http://www.tei-c.org/About/history.xml Accessed: 14/05/2013.
[5] Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. ‘Textual Criticism and the Text Encoding Initiative’. p 48.
[6] Deegan, Marilyn and Sutherland, Kathryn. Transferred Illusions: Digital Technology and the Forms of Print. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009. p 87.
[7] Lavagnino, John. ‘Completeness and Adequacy in Text Encoding’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. p 75
[8] Lavagnino, John. ‘Completeness and Adequacy in Text Encoding’. p 71.
[9] Deegan, Marilyn and Sutherland, Kathryn. Transferred Illusions: Digital Technology and the Forms of Print. p 61.
[10] Lavagnino, John. ‘Completeness and Adequacy in Text Encoding’. p 67.
[11] Deegan, Marilyn and Sutherland, Kathryn. Transferred Illusions: Digital Technology and the Forms of Print. p 71.
[12] Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. ‘Textual Criticism and the Text Encoding Initiative’. p 41.
[13] Doss, Phillip E. ‘Traditional Theory and Innovative Practice: The Electronic Editor as Poststructuralist Reader’. In:  Finneran, Richard J. ed. The Literary Text in the Digital Age. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. p 218.
[14] Earhart, Amy E. ‘Can Information Be Unfettered? Race and the New Digital Humanities Canon’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. p 310.
[15] Spiro, Lisa. ‘”This Is Why We Fight”: Defining the Values of the Digital Humanities’. In: Gold, Matthew K. ed. Debates in the Digital Humanities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. p22.
[16] Deegan, Marilyn and Sutherland, Kathryn. Transferred Illusions: Digital Technology and the Forms of Print. p 77. 

1 comment:

  1. Your approach to the div/page/lg multiple hierarchy problem is somewhat unorthodox and likely to confuse typical TEI-aware software. The TEI Guidelines suggest using an empty tag to mark page breaks rather than a container element, as you have. Did you not consider this approach, or was there some reason why it did not seem suitable?

    ReplyDelete