Hi Malte, 

I think this is because <gloss> is not meant for medieval types of
glosses, but for explanations of technical terms: see
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/CO.html#COHQU

Now, we can discuss if this shouldn't be interpreted in a much broader
sense but I have always been told that <note type="gloss"> or <add
type="gloss"> are more adequate candidates for the types of glosses you
have in your MS, this is because the glosses in the margin of MS pages can
contain many things (quotations, references, explanations, variants...)
while <gloss> contains only an explanation. The idea is to find the
semantic element for what you have there.


I hope it helps.
Elena

________________________________________
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Lecturer in Digital Humanities
Chair of the Teaching Committee
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
[log in to unmask]
Www.kcl.ac.uk/ddh





On 20/04/2011 17:36, "Malte Rehbein" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>I am encoding a medieval manuscript containing glosses (i.e. explanations
>for words or phrases). These glosses often refer to and cite other sources
>(mostly the Church Fathers). I thought that <gloss> might be appropriate
>and
>more specific than something like <note type="glossa"> to mark up these
>explanations. But I wonder why neither <cit> nor <quote> is allowed within
><gloss>, nor is any bibliographic reference.
>
>Any idea?
>
>Best,
>Malte