FRUS1950-1955 about frus-tei

[vak2ve]

Observations about HCL's version 2 for @joewiz after comparing both FRUS1950-1955 files directly:

1. Much more reliance on @list, @item, and @Label than @p. Great majority of these changes were for the better and increased accuracy given document context. However there was also some of HCL's previously-noted tendency to overtag lists when numbered paragraphs should have been used. Maybe institute a rule of thumb--if an item contains more than one p tag, numbered paragraphs should be used instead?
2. Greatly improved use of @persName and corresp elements.
3. Ditto for @GLOSS and target elements.
4. Dropped text reinstated in less than a dozen instances--couldn't discern a pattern that would account for those instances being dropped. Random OCR error? Either way version 2 much improved.
5. rend="flushleft" applied in 101 instances to paragraphs serving as subject headings, resulting in greater accuracy (http://localhost:8080/historicaldocuments/frus1950-55Intel/d6). A rendition value "indent" applied to the following item tag would be even more accurate to the printed page.
6. Related to #5: should be noted that in terms of content this volume differs slightly from others--more long documents and extensive reports, fewer short telegrams, etc, with a doc count of 259 as opposed to 700+. I've never seen all-caps subject headings before so some of these notes may be of limited use for future volumes.
7. Openers only needed for 28 documents. @list type="participants" also structured differently, in a way not conducive to table conversion, so I left them as they were.
8. Tables in great shape, though few in number.
9. Blockquotes, often tagged as simple paragraphs in version 1, were tagged appropriately with correct rend value in version 2.
10. Contains 44 schematron errors re: frus:attachment elements. Remaining 6 schematron errors involved two .tif file extensions.

Overall HCL's second delivery was a great improvement on the first, though FRUS1950-1955 was unique enough that I'd like to compare two versions of a different volume before I make any final pronouncement on their revisions.