How to cite this paper
Renear, Allen H., and Bonnie Mak. “Presentational Markup: What's going on?” Presented at Balisage: The Markup Conference 2021, Washington, DC, August 2 - 6, 2021. In Proceedings of Balisage: The Markup Conference 2021. Balisage Series on Markup Technologies, vol. 26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4242/BalisageVol26.Renear01.
Balisage: The Markup Conference 2021
August 2 - 6, 2021
Balisage Paper: Presentational Markup: What’s going on?
Allen H. Renear
Professor, School of Information Sciences
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Bonnie Mak
Associate Professor, School of Information Sciences
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Copyright ©2021 by the authors. Used with permission.
Abstract
We explore some theoretical questions concerning the renditional features common
in textual communication. By renditional features we mean such things as the
arrangement of text on the page and text size or style, whether in manuscript or
printed documents. We refer to these features as presentational
markup, using that phrase with its original meaning: the renditional
features themselves, not the codes intended to generate these features when
processed by computer software. Presentational markup plays a critical role in
textual communication as these renditional features directly support the recognition
of content in the final phase of communication. Yet it is descriptive markup that
has dominated the attention of the SGML/XML markup theorists. We take a few steps
towards rebalancing this distribution of attention. We consider whether
presentational markup should be considered a category of document markup alongside
descriptive and procedural markup, summarize the origin of variant meanings of
presentational markup,
and describe several approaches to
understanding the role of presentational markup in the communication of information.
Although we focus on textual communication, much of the discussion about renditional
features applies to oral communication as well; renditional features exist in speech
as well as in writing. These are the preliminary ruminations of a Balisage
Late Breaking
contribution — we are inviting discussion.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Markup
- Presentational Markup
- The Meanings of Presentational Markup
- Is Presentational Markup Really Markup?
- So What is Going On?
-
- The Simple Description Account
- The Simple Performative Account
- Unconscious Awareness
- Non-Propositional Experiences
- Looking ahead
Introduction
From Cassiodorus’s sixth-century Institutiones, instructions
to his monk-scribes:
Jerome arranged his translation of the entire divine
authority … into cola and
commata so that those who have difficulty in understanding the punctuation of sacred
letters might, thus assisted, pronounce the holy text without error ....
Place in each chapter the punctuation marks that the Greeks call
thesis, i.e., small round points … since they make the
written text clear and bright when … they are fitted in their place and shine forth.
How excellent it is to pass unhindered through holy thought and to enter subtly into
the sound nature of its precepts … and to divide the whole composition in parts in
such a way that it is beautiful when regarded in its sections!
For if our body must be known through its limbs, why does it seem right to leave
reading confused in its arrangement? These positurae, or
points, like paths for the mind and lights for the composition, make readers as
teachable as if they were instructed by the clearest commentators.
Presentational markup was introduced as a category of markup in
1987 by Coombs et al. to refer to the renditional features of a presented document,
such
as the arrangement of words on the page and text size or style. It was intended to
as a
complement to descriptive markup (e.g., <title>) and procedural markup (e.g.,
<center>), two markup categories that had been introduced some years earlier by
Charles Goldfarb.
In any general account of textual communication, presentational markup plays a
critical role: it accomplishes the recognition of intended content in the very last
phase of the communication scenario, not only by making communication more efficient
and
more reliable, but also by determining the received meaning of the text. This
determination is not limited to simple identifications and disambiguations; presentational
markup also
operates more globally to create distinctive cultural meanings. A broad historical
view
of textual communication reveals that choice of script, type, image, and physical
platform are interpreted differently by different audiences and that books that transmit
the same words do not always transmit the same story (Mak 2011).
Every manifestation of a text includes presentational markup. Such markup is critical
to its reception and its ability to be received. Yet it is descriptive markup that
has
almost completely dominated the attention of SGML/XML markup theorists. Over the
last forty years, the markup community has explored new subcategories of descriptive
markup, syntactical innovations to accommodate non-hierarchical and discontiguous
objects, systems for attaching formal semantics, the comparative virtues of different
schema languages, the comparative virtues of different query languages, and so on.
A
comparable theoretical perspective on presentational markup is almost entirely absent
from this considerable body of research.
Markup
Prior to the emergence of electronic publishing and text processing, the word
markup
was commonly used to refer to proofing marks and instructions
to compositors that were written on a manuscript, typescript, or a preliminary proof.
In
the 1970s, the term markup
began to be used for the specialized codes or
expressions that were included in the textual data files and controlled the formatting
carried out by word processing or typesetting systems. These codes had same general
purpose as the proofing marks or instructions to compositors, but were intended to
be
processed by computer software rather than acted upon by human compositors or editors.
The origins of the current widespread use of the term markup
in this
sense – namely, instructions for software – can be traced to IBM’s Generalized Markup
Language (GML) (IBM 1978).
Charles Goldfarb, GML’s co-developer and later editor of the SGML standard, offers
a
characterization of software-oriented markup in his influential 1981 SIGPLAN paper,
which was later included as Annex A of the SGML standard:
Text processing and word processing systems typically require users to intersperse
additional information in the natural text of the document being processed. This
added information, called markup,
serves two purposes: 1. it
separates the logical elements of the document; and 2. it specifies the processing
functions to be performed on those elements (Goldfarb 1981).
The subsequent characterizations of markup that have been offered over the last forty
years remain broadly consistent with Goldfarb’s 1981 characterization. With little
variation, markup is described as (i) providing information about the text, (ii) being
included with the text, and (ii) not being part of the text. We will refer to this
as
the standard definition of markup.
Presentational Markup
In pursuit of a general theory of markup, and one that would provide a useful context
for promoting descriptive markup in the text processing community, Markup Systems
and the Future of Scholarly Text Processing
(Coombs et al. 1987) endorsed Goldfarb’s two markup categories and added four others. Among the added
categories was presentational markup, which referred to the
renditional (or presentational) features of the formatted
document:
In addition to marking up lower-level elements with punctuation, authors mark up
the higher-level entities in a variety of ways to make the presentation clearer.
Such markup — presentational markup — includes horizontal and vertical spacing,
folios, page breaks, enumeration of lists and notes, and a host of ad hoc symbols
and devices.
For Coombs et al., presentational markup is a natural part of all textual
communication: authors have long performed presentational markup in their
manuscripts and typescripts
and whenever an author writes
anything, he or she ‘marks it up’.
As an example of text with no presentational markup, they supply a passage with no
interword spaces (scriptio continua). But, in this example,
presentational markup is paradoxically present in its apparent absence. That is, the
use
of continuous script can be a strategic choice. Whereas word spacing supports the
observation of grammar by visually dividing words, scriptio
continua facilitates the observation of meter or rhythmic structure,
which is critical to the oral performance of verse. The metrical unit of the colon is a clause composed of
around eight to seventeen syllables, which means that its terminus may or may not
coincide with a word-ending. Scriptio continua is thus not the
absence of presentational markup, but is itself presentational markup. It is a way
of
rendering the text that facilitates the recognition of features of interest, and
therefore must be considered presentational markup. The apparent lack of presentational
markup is, in
fact, presentational markup.
Coombs et al. also note that the concept of presentational markup is applicable to
other modalities of communication, such as speech:
When we translate
writing into speech (i.e., when we read aloud),
we do not normally read the markup directly; instead, we interpret the markup and
use various paralinguistic gestures to convey the appropriate information. A
question mark, for example, might become a raising of the voice or the
eyebrows.
Markup in this sense is not unique to digital processing, or even to specific
institutions of textual production, such as those with human editors, designers,
proofreaders, and compositors who need to communicate with one another during the
production process.
One might divide presentational markup into two broad categories. Whenever text is
presented there will be, necessarily, renditional features that are part of that
presentation. The characters must be some size or other, the lines some length of
other,
the type some style or other, the script in some hand or other. Although the wider
cultural context, as well as local circumstances, can give these features considerable
significance, they will often appear to have been chosen simply to improve, in a general
way, the efficiency and accuracy of the reading experience: the type is large enough
to
read, characters of the hand easy to discriminate, the line length optimal, running
headings useful, and so on.
On the other hand, when renditional features are used to markup the higher
level entities
(such as titles), they are not simply improving general
legibility. They are also communicating the existence of particular textual objects:
titles, extracts, author names, formulas, proofs, theorems, verses, and so on. In
what
follows, the focus will be on this latter use of presentational markup.
The Meanings of Presentational Markup
The original sense of presentational markup, renditional features themselves, is no
longer the most common sense. This situation is particularly confusing as Markup Systems
(Coombs et al. 1987)
is cited as the source for various definitions of the term, even when the sense given
has no similarity at all to the sense provided in Markup Systems. These variant senses
and misattributions have contributed to the undertheorizing of presentational markup
in
the markup community.
The phrase presentational markup
is now primarily used for instructions
that specify how text is to be processed, such as <center>
, which
instructs a formatter to center the enclosed textual content. That is,
presentational markup
now refers to what Goldfarb (1981) and others
call procedural markup. This redundant variant sense of
presentational markup
was probably inevitable. For one thing the
phrase presentational markup
itself easily allows this interpretation. In
addition, the widespread recognition of the paramount importance of the contrast between
markup that identifies text elements and markup that specifies formatting made the
interpretation a useful one in the circumstances. Finally, the notion that renditional
features might be considered markup is challenging and unexpected, which probably
further disadvantaged the original sense. Regardless of how this shift began, it has
been sustained by the prevalence of semantic markup
and
presentational markup
as opposed terms referring to the descriptive
and procedural markup of the HTML markup language.
A second variant sense derives from a series of definitions given in the Wikipedia
article on Markup Language. By August of 2005, the Wikipedia
article included definitions of descriptive, procedural, and presentational markup,
citing Markup Systems as its source. The account given for presentational markup was
a
reasonable interpretation of the sense given by Markup Systems:
Presentational markup expresses document structure via the visual appearance of
the whole text of a particular fragment. For example, in a word processor file, the
title of a document might be preceded by several newlines and spaces, thus
accomplishing leading space and centering … (Wikipedia, August 24, 2005)
However, the revisions made to this definition in 2009 created an entirely new
variant sense:
Presentational markup is that [sic] used by traditional
word-processing systems, binary codes embedded in document text that produced the
WYSIWG effect. Such markup is usually designed to be hidden from human users ....
(Wikipedia, July 29, 2009)
This version omits the accurate lead sentence of the 2005 definition, takes the word
processing context as characteristic of presentational markup, and identifies
binary codes
as the presentational markup itself.
A third but less common sense of presentational markup
refers to
descriptions of realized renditional features. This sort of markup is most likely
to
occur in transcriptions of culturally important texts where it records the occurrence
of
such things as italics, line breaks, or other features that may of interest to scholars
studying those texts. Like the previous variant sense this is also a plausible
interpretation of the phrase considered in isolation. It also reflects a weakness
with
the basic descriptive/procedural distinction which covertly yokes together two different
features that a markup category can have: illocutionary force (e.g., descriptive v.
imperative) and semantic domain (e.g. logical element v. rendering), without recognizing
and accommodating the possibility of independent assortments, let alone other features
and other values (Renear 2000).
Is Presentational Markup Really Markup?
The use of renditional features to mark up higher level entities
such
as titles seems to satisfy the standard definition of markup: renditional features
such
as centering and italics inform the reader that a certain bit of text is a title;
those
features are not part of the text (they are not themselves textual in nature); and
they
are included with the text because they occur combined with the text in the rendered
presentation.
Of course, the standard definition of markup is subject to interpretation and
revision. So it is equally important that there is a general rationale for treating
renditional features as markup, for seeing a concept of markup that includes renditional
features as useful for reasoning about textual communication. The inclusive
conception of markup does appear to capture phenomena that are fundamentally similar
even though superficially different and that play relevantly related coordinate roles
in
textual communication.
Hesitation about classifying renditional features as markup is typically based on
one
or both of two reasons:
The first is that descriptive and procedural markup, as well as proofing marks and
notes to compositors, all appear to be occurrences of expressions in a language.
Descriptive and procedural markup are typically composed of alphanumeric characters
with
delimiters and associating punctuation, a vocabulary of lexical items of different
logical types (often making use of familiar natural kind terms and mathematical
expressions), an explicit or implicit generative grammar, referential and characterizing
features and some sort of compositional semantics, formal or implied, just as we find
in
typical natural and artificial languages. By contrast, renditional features do not
appear to be occurrences of expressions in a language.
Nevertheless, renditional features perform a communicative role: the layout of textual
elements informs the reader that such and such is the title of the article, that so
and
so is the name of the author, that a citation is the source for a sentence, and so
on.
Most importantly, renditional features are not just evidence for
these things (as smoke is evidence for fire). They are social conventions intended
to
cause the reader to recognize the existence and identity of textual elements, to,
e.g.,
understand a bit of text to be a title. The reader is also intended to recognize this
intention and, in addition, to recognize that that recognition was
itself intended. This double intention and recognition of intention is, in Gricean
semantics, at the heart of what we mean by meaning
(Grice 1957). So although renditional features may not be part of a language
in exactly the same sense that descriptive and presentational markup are part of a
language, renditional features are like descriptive and procedural markup in being
part of a symbolic
system for the intentional communication of information.
Another reason one might hesitate to consider renditional features as markup is that
renditional features are typically intended to be directly perceived by a person,
whereas procedural and descriptive markup are typically intended to be processed by
a
software application. Although these distinctions are certainly important, they do
not
seem to warrant abandoning the more general concept.
Additional classifications can be made, and contexts of use will create certain
assumptions about the domain of application, or implied specialization, but, again,
those are not reasons to abandon the general concept expressed in the standard
definition. It may of course be surprising that the general definition counts
renditional features as markup, but then we are often surprised by the extensions
of our
natural kind terms.
Nevertheless, it is not clear that these considerations are decisive. Perhaps the
strongest argument for not classifying renditional features as markup is that
renditional features are really part of the text. As noted above, renditional features
are similar to the natural language sentences of the text in that they also are
informing the canonical reader. Meaning
might be understood as emerging from the relationship between, for instance, the
centering of a phrase and the phrase that is centered, and perhaps it is that ensemble,
and not just the phrase alone, that should be understood as the text.
For now, though, we will continue to refer to renditional features as presentational
markup.
So What is Going On?
Presentational markup facilitates the recognition of textual objects like titles and
extracts. These objects have been referred to above as logical elements
(Goldfarb 1981) and higher level entities
. In this
section we will refer to them below as content objects
(Derose et al. 1990). Our question is: how, exactly, does presentational markup facilitate
the recognition of content objects.
The Simple Description Account
We begin with the characterization suggested above: presentational markup is a
system for describing, or communicating, the existence and identity of content
objects. If this is right, then presentational markup collapses into descriptive
markup as far as illocutionary force is concerned (they both
describe) although remaining distinctive in other ways:
presentational markup is intended to support the canonical reader and so has
characteristics specifically appropriate to that purpose.
A possible objection to this account is that it is inconsistent with the
experience of reading. Imagine someone reading a book about whaling. On the simple
description account the book contains both presentational markup that identifies and
relates content objects, and natural language sentences that make zoological claims
about whales. Is the reader simultaneously reading about
content objects and also reading about whales? Or perhaps reading oscillates between
the
presentational markup identifying content objects and the narrative sentences of the
text; the reader then combines these to form a fully realized understanding of the
content being communicated. Simultaneous conscious consumption of narrative
sentences and presentational markup would be avoided, but it might still be objected
that this oscillation is inconsistent with the common experience of reading.
Although beliefs about our immediate experiences are sometimes regarded as being
relatively privileged epistemically, we do not assume in what follows that our
beliefs about the reading experience are accurate. Rather the line of reasoning
presented explores how a supposed inconsistency might be
accommodated.
The Simple Performative Account
A performative interpretation of the role of presentational markup may partially
address the objection from reading experience. According to this view,
presentational markup is not, strictly speaking, describing
something in the sense of making a true or false assertion, but it is
creating something. The presentational markup for a title
creates a title; the presentational markup for a block extract creates a block
extract. Or, alternatively, one might say that the presentational markup creates the
textual elements title, and extract.
In Austin’s familiar example of promising, a person who utters the first-person
present tense sentence I promise …
is not
describing anything — they are
promising something. That is, they are not making a claim
that could be characterized as a true or false assertion about how the world is, as
they would be if they had said in the past tense Yesterday I promised …
or in the present tense but of someone else She is promising …
. By promising they are creating an obligation,
not describing one. On this account, presentational markup is a language for
creating textual states of affairs, not describing them. The presentational markup
for a title, for instance, accomplishes the titling of a document.
Nevertheless, because performatives still involve some form of propositional
communication, they may not seem to directly address the objection from reading
experience. Even if no proposition is asserted, by the
promiser, the audience still engages with the propositional content of the uttered
sentence I promise …
. On a performative interpretation of
presentational markup, the situation would seem to be similar. The reader will
recognize presentational markup as expressing, even though not asserting,
propositional content. In this case the content would be This is the
title: …, only now that content is intended as a declaration, not a
description.
Unconscious Awareness
Perhaps the descriptions expressed in presentational markup are processed at a
different cognitive level than the descriptions of whales. This processing need not
be mysterious. When we return from a walk we can typically respond correctly to a
very large number of questions about what we saw: gravel, asphalt, curbs, steps,
grass, oak trees, roses, litter, steps, handrails, automobiles, and so on. Given
both the likely number and extreme variety of these easily answerable questions it
is improbable that in every case the corresponding concepts were in our occurrent
consciousness at some point during the walk. Moreover, we would probably deny that
we had any thoughts at all about most of those objects during the walk. Yet in some
sense we were aware of those things — otherwise we would not be able to correctly
respond to questions about what we saw. Moreover, we could not have succeeded in
navigating our way around branches, over curbs, up steps, grasping handrails, and
so
on if we were not aware of these things, and many more besides, even though, again,
we had no conscious thoughts about them.
On this account the objection from reading experience is blunted because while we
are consciously aware of the assertions about whales, we are only unconsciously
aware of the assertions about textual objects (e.g., this is a
title). This seems consistent with the fact that someone may report
that they learned the title of the article they just read even though this
is the title was never a proposition in their occurrent
consciousness. The reader recognizes that the title is a title, and recognizes that
it is title because they see that it is bold and centered, but none of the concepts
title, bold, or centered, were,
necessarily, present in the reader’s occurrent consciousness.
Non-Propositional Experiences
A question arises though. When we are unconsciously aware of, e.g., a title, are
we really, even unconsciously, seeing that some text is a
title? This would seem to be the case if presentational markup is a system for
informing us of the existence and identity of content objects, even if it is
creating the things it is reporting. But, again, having so many propositional
beliefs, even if unconscious, may still seem like too much cognition.
Perhaps our engagement with presentational markup is not only unconscious, but
also fundamentally non-propositional in nature. The reader sees some centered text
as a title, and they see that text as a title because they
see it as centered. But they do not see that the centered text
is centered, and then reason from that recognition to the
further conclusion that the centered text is a title. On this
account presentational markup continues to be causally involved in communication by
creating a certain experience, seeing some text as a title), but not by expressing
the proposition that some bit of text is a title. An awareness that is both
unconscious and non-propositional might provide the sort of background experience
we
generally associate with presentational markup.
None of this prevents the reader from subsequently reflecting on their unconscious
non-propositional experiences and acquiring the occurrent propositional knowledge
that some text is a title. And of course, this also does not prevent the reader from
retrospectively explaining their original experiencing of some text as a title by
referring to the relevant presentational markup. The reader is correctly recognizing
that the markup had a causal role in creating the experience, and the subsequent
belief, and if they choose to (incorrectly) represent this experience as their
inferring that some text is a title on the basis of their
seeing that the text is centered and bold, we can forgive them
a convenient fiction.
Looking ahead
Puzzles abound. Here are just a few:
What shall we say when a compositor’s error leads to the author’s name being set as
if
it were the title? If the performative is effective then that’s the title — the wrong
title, but the title nonetheless. Perhaps though it is an edition of the work that
has
the wrong title, and the work retains its intended title. A somewhat different case
is when the topic of an essay is used as the title deliberately, and across many
editions, as with many classical texts e.g., In Verrem.
Full stops and capital letters help us see orthographic sentence boundaries — or do
they create (orthographic) sentence boundaries?
What should be considered part of the writing system? Presentational markup?
Presentational markup goes beyond facilitating efficient and reliable reading and
often makes a determining contribution to the identity of textual objects: an extract
is
seen as an extract and not part of the preceding text by the indentation, or the last
section in a chapter is seen to be a section and not a subsection of the previous
section because of how its heading is set. However, cases where the contribution is
at
the sentence level and determines the proposition expressed by a sentence may stress
our
sense of categories like language, writing system, or markup. Consider the sentences
like She married him?
vs She married
him?
Varying the emphasis varies the question just
as varying the verb would.
We have been tugging at just a string or two in a large daunting snarl of intricate
problems, elusive concepts, and shifting categories. You are invited to help with
the
untangling. We hope we have followed Cassiodorus’s advice and left you at least a
few
positurae, paths for the mind and lights for the
composition.
References
[Cassiodorus] Cassiodorus. Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning, and, On the Soul. Translated by James W. Halporn. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004.
[Coombs et al. 1987] Coombs, James H., Allen H. Renear, Steven J. DeRose. Markup Systems and the Future of Scholarly Text Processing.
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1987, 30 (11), pp. 933-947. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/32206.32209.
[Derose et al. 1990] DeRose, Steven J, David G. Durand, Elli Mylonas, Allen H Renear. What is Text Really?
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1990, 1, pp. 3-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941632.
[Goldfarb 1981] Goldfarb, Charles. A Generalized Approach to Document Markup.
Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN SIGOA symposium on Text Manipulation, 1981. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/800209.806456.
[IBM 1978] IBM. Document Composition Facility: Generalized Markup Language (GML) Users Guide. IBM General Products Division, 1978.
[Genette 1997] Genette, Gérard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[Grice 1957] Grice, H.P. Meaning.
Philosophical Review, 66 (3), 1957.
[Mak 2011] Mak, Bonnie. How the Page Matters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.
[Nagy 2000] Nagy, Gregory. Reading Greek Poetry Aloud: Evidence from the Bacchylides Papyri.
Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, n.s. 64, no. 1, 2000: 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/20546621.
[O'Donnell 1979] O'Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
[Parkes 1993] Parkes, M.B.
Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993.
[Parkes 2008] Parkes, M.B.
Their Hands Before Our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2008.
[Renear et al. 2002] Renear, Allen H., David C. Dubin, C. Michael Sperberg-McQueen. Towards a Semantics for XML Markup.
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2002, pp. 119-126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/585058.585081.
[Renear 2000] Renear, Allen H. The Descriptive/Procedural Distinction is Flawed.
Markup Languages 2 (4), Fall 2000.
[Saenger 1997] Saenger, Paul. Space Between Words: Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997.
×Cassiodorus. Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning, and, On the Soul. Translated by James W. Halporn. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2004.
×Coombs, James H., Allen H. Renear, Steven J. DeRose. Markup Systems and the Future of Scholarly Text Processing.
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1987, 30 (11), pp. 933-947. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/32206.32209.
×DeRose, Steven J, David G. Durand, Elli Mylonas, Allen H Renear. What is Text Really?
Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1990, 1, pp. 3-26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941632.
×IBM. Document Composition Facility: Generalized Markup Language (GML) Users Guide. IBM General Products Division, 1978.
×Genette, Gérard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
×Grice, H.P. Meaning.
Philosophical Review, 66 (3), 1957.
×Mak, Bonnie. How the Page Matters. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011.
×Nagy, Gregory. Reading Greek Poetry Aloud: Evidence from the Bacchylides Papyri.
Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica, n.s. 64, no. 1, 2000: 7. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/20546621.
×O'Donnell, James J. Cassiodorus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
×Parkes, M.B.
Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993.
×Parkes, M.B.
Their Hands Before Our Eyes: A Closer Look at Scribes. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2008.
×Renear, Allen H., David C. Dubin, C. Michael Sperberg-McQueen. Towards a Semantics for XML Markup.
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Document Engineering 2002, pp. 119-126. doi:https://doi.org/10.1145/585058.585081.
×Renear, Allen H. The Descriptive/Procedural Distinction is Flawed.
Markup Languages 2 (4), Fall 2000.
×Saenger, Paul. Space Between Words: Origins of Silent Reading. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1997.