Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mouse-over/tooltip texts #291

Open
arlogriffiths opened this issue Apr 21, 2024 · 8 comments
Open

mouse-over/tooltip texts #291

arlogriffiths opened this issue Apr 21, 2024 · 8 comments
Assignees
Labels
invalid This doesn't seem right

Comments

@arlogriffiths
Copy link
Collaborator

arlogriffiths commented Apr 21, 2024

@danbalogh and @michaelnmmeyer

I notice that several of the little descriptions that pop up with mouse-over (I Dan calls this tooltip) are neither direct expressions of the TEI elements nor identical to what we say on https://dharmalekha.info/editorial-conventions.

I attach some screenshots as examples:

  • why "Line start" and not "Line beginning" for <lb>?
  • why give more than "Superfluous text" for <surplus>?
  • why "Foliation work" and not "Forme work" for <fw>? (Though since "forme work" is such a specialized term, that I'd never heard before the start of DHARMA in 2019, maybe a more generally understandable expression like "Foliation" without "work" would be desirable.)

Could you work together to make sure all relevant messages have Dan's approval? I am happy to trust his judgment.

Air Kali (849-850 Śaka) - DHARMA 2
Air Kali (849-850 Śaka) - DHARMA 3
Air Kali (849-850 Śaka) - DHARMA

@arlogriffiths arlogriffiths added the invalid This doesn't seem right label Apr 21, 2024
@danbalogh
Copy link
Collaborator

If @michaelnmmeyer could prepare a list of what tooltip is shown for what code, I should be able to suggest improvements. This could perhaps be integrated with our collaboration on the cheatsheet/conventions list, though it may be better to keep the two separate. I do, however, think that tooltips should be kept relatively simple, and that means that they may not be 100% appropriate in all cases. Thus, @arlogriffiths , I'm not sure what your problem is with the tooltip "Superfluous text erroneously added by the scribe", but if it is that the suppressed comma is not really "text", then I think this is within tolerance.

@arlogriffiths
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I meant that "Superfluous text erroneously added by the scribe" seems redundant to me. Why would "Superfluous text" not be sufficient?

@michaelnmmeyer
Copy link
Member

I will create a sample file that enumerates all possible cases. This will take some time, though.

@danbalogh
Copy link
Collaborator

Thanks, I don't think this is urgent. If we leave this thread open, I'll get an alert when you mention it here; or you can just send me the sample file directly over email.

@arlogriffiths
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Here's another thing that doesn't seem right.

Code:

 <lg xml:lang="san-Latn" met="śārdūlavikrīḍita" n="34">
 <l n="a"><supplied reason="lost" evidence="previouseditor">sādhūnām pathi yātu paura-samitir dharmyā gatir ma</supplied>ntriṇām</l>
 <l n="b">bhūyād bhūta-hiteṣiṇo muni-janā Itthan na me prārthanā</l>
<l n="c">yasmiñ jīvati rājñi ra<lb break="no" n="A36"/><supplied reason="lost" evidence="previouseditor">kṣati bhuvan dharmeṇa siddhyanti te</supplied></l>
<l n="d"><supplied reason="lost" evidence="previouseditor">tasmāc chrī-jala</supplied>laṅga-deva-nr̥-patir dīrghaṁ sa jīvyād iti ⊙ // ⊙</l>
</lg>

Display:
Capture d’écran 2024-04-23 à 20 05 00

Note wrong explanation of @evidence of <supplied>.

@michaelnmmeyer
Copy link
Member

For this one I inadvertently swapped the two possible values of @evidence. The expected tooltips were:

parallel       restoration based on parallel
previouseditor restoration based on previous edition (not assessable)

@arlogriffiths
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can we get this moving again? What about starting with the correction of the wrong tooltip "Foliation work"? Above I suggested that "Foliation" would be good.

Capture d’écran 2024-06-28 à 07 04 31

@michaelnmmeyer
Copy link
Member

OK for "Foliation".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
invalid This doesn't seem right
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants