I haven't had to do this much with EAD and XSL:FO, but instead with MODS
and plain XSLT.
I agree that a <seg> element would work nicely. I could even see room
for introducing attributes on seg or emph like xml:lang and script like
MODS uses. This could allow a more granular distinguishment for a piece
of text from the larger document-wide language and script settings
coming from <langusage>, etc. I could see real systems benefits and
useful hooks stemming from this granularity.
That said, using <emph> doesn't seem egregious. I certainly wouldn't
bat an eye at doing so! :) I'd still agree with you that a seg element
would work well.
Stephen Yearl wrote:
> A question for those who have some experience with multi-language EAD
> When creating xsl:fo one has to explicitly set @language-family to a
> font that will display the desired language. This is not a problem for
> western/romance languages since FOP's default font set has glyphs for
> these. It is a problem, say, for Arabic. There is a font I know of
> that has glyphs for the entire Unicode character range (at least as of
> version 2), that comes pre-installed on the most recent Windows
> releases, Arial Unicode MS. It is, however, particularly ugly and I'd
> like apply fonts for 'exotic' languages at a much finer level.
> I'm thinking that
> <p>This is in English but this <emph render="altrender"
> altrender="set_font:Iqraa">المرسل إليه</emph> is not, and neither is
> this<emph render="altrender" altrender="set_font: Pigiarniq">ᓴᓕᑦᑐᑐᖅ
> </emph> .</p>
> is 'acceptable-ish' but might abuse <emph> somewhat; this is not for
> linguistic effect. And it doesn't capture the essence of what I'm
> trying to achieve or tell one anything meaningful about the language.
> How have others dealt with this given the lack of a generic text
> segmentation element?
> (I guess that this is an informal call for something like the TEI's
> <seg> in EAD v.3).
> Stephen Yearl
> Systems Archivist
> Yale University Library::Manuscripts and Archives