...where the subject line suggests some of the confusion that multiple
hierarchies can induce.

We're going to be digitizing and encoding in TEI some print volumes that
are editions of correspondence. In encoded form, they will become part of
an aggregation that will include one or more editions of correspondence
that exist only in electronic form. Because is a kind of secondary
encoding (where the print edition is the first "encoding" of primary
materials), I want to be sure I'm on the right track in distinguishing
between authorial and editorial changes and additions.

Suppose the print edition uses ^text^ to indicate additions by the author
of a letter in the letter manuscript, and [text] to indicate editorial
additions. So given a dateline that appears in print as

   Cambridge, ^Mass.^ 18 Feb. [1835]

this might be coded

  <dateline>
    <name type="place">Cambridge, <add hand="author">Mass.</add></name>
    <date value="1835-02-18">18 Feb. <add hand="editor">1835</add>
  </dateline>

with the corresponding <hand> entries in a <handList> portion of the TEI
header. So I would be treating the printed ^ and [] characters as pure
accidentals that do not need to be represented in the substratum of the
encoding, though of course a stylesheet could be used to reproduce them in
output if desired.

Is this the best strategy, or are there better conventional ways to
handle this kind of case?

David

--
David Sewell, Editorial and Technical Manager
Electronic Imprint, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 400318, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4318 USA
Courier: 310 Old Ivy Way, Suite 302, Charlottesville VA 22903
Email: [log in to unmask] Tel: +1 434 924 9973