This is a situation that we have not yet considered, and we should do so. We need an internal standard for referring to ranges of segments in a consistent way. This would be used in such places as:
- Here in the context of notes.
- “text highlighting” for the text pages, based on sectional parallels
- Links in dictionaries and essays
The first thing is that the
# means a “link to something inside the page or document”. It is how URLs specify internal links. We used to use this for our IDs, but it is ugly, so now we use
: and transform it when needed. Or at least, that’s the theory!
Bottom line is, in a Bilara ID, everything that specifies a particular text (i.e. the part of the ID that is the same for every segment in a text) is followed by a colon. Everything after the colon identifies segments within the text.
So it should be:
Since whatever follows the colon specifies the segments in the page, that can be used to indicate a range. The most obvious way to do this would be to make a rule:
Ranges of segments are defined using the full number following the colon.
Now, sometimes within segments we use a hyphen. This indicates a different kind of range. Not a range of segments, but where a segment captures a range within the original text (typically where a text is so abbreviated that it is impossible to specific each item).
Is this a problem? Do we need to disambiguate the two kinds of ranges? To be clear, the range of segments proposed here will never appear as a segment ID. It is a canonical way to refer to a range of segments, for example, in a note.
Another question. It is common in similar cases to present only as much detail in the range as is necessary. Thus we might have:
Or in another case:
This allows more concision, but I think it adds complexity and should be avoided. What do you think?
Any other thoughts?