Sure, but that is precisely the point. The commentary appears in the introduction, or the footnotes or the endnotes, not (these days) inside the text itself.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Boot [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 18 March 2010 16:42
> To: Croenen, Godfried
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TEI-L] Best place to put <linkGrp>?
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:10:52 +0000, "Croenen, Godfried"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> I put lots of stuff in the <back> that's not in the original
> >> commentary, translations, <interpGrp>'s, and <linkGrp>'s too.
> > That's all very well but I do agree with Martin that it does not seem
> > right at all.
> > There is a natural place to put all sorts of meta-data and that is
> > header, so why should we try to cheat and put meta-data elsewhere?
> There is no reason why a linkGrp should necessarily be seen as
> no more than any other pointer. Many editions contain more information
> that which appears in the source, e.g. a translation, or a commentary.
> should a linkGrp that links e.g. pieces of text to pieces of
> commentary, or
> to translations, be considered metadata?