On 08/05/12 11:22, Gerrit Brüning wrote:
> The Guidelines state:
> "Where the transcriber considers that one or more words have been
> erroneously omitted in the original source and corrects this
> omission, the <supplied> element discussed in 11.3.1.7 [...]
> should be used in preference to <corr>."
> (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/PH.html#PHCC)
> We must admit to breaking this rule. And I still cannot see why
> <corr> is wrong, because it seems to me that with <corr> the
> editor what is ERRONEOUSLY not present in the source, whereas
> <supplied> is for passages which are not erroneous, but, for
> example, damaged or deleted.
> What is the right way to go?

Hi Gerrit,

Speaking only for myself I view <supplied> as a further 
refinement to <corr>.  I.e. <corr> says 'there was a mistake 
here, and here is the correct version' (in parallel with <sic>) 
and <supplied> says 'the original had nothing here, but to be 
correct I think it should contain this'.  i.e. <supplied> is 
always additive where as <corr> could be removing something or 
just replacing the error with the corrected form.

So for example:

<choice>
<sic>A mistakke</sic>
<corr>A mistake</corr>
</choice>

vs

<choice>
<sic>A mistke</sic>
<corr>A mistake here</corr>
</choice>

vs

<choice>
<sic>A mistke</sic>
<corr>A mist<supplied>a</supplied>ke <supplied>here</supplied></corr>
</choice>

assuming the 'here' is not there because of damage, all work for 
me. But in the end I think it depends on your project's editorial 
principles. As long as you are internally consistent and document 
what your project does, that is most important.  But, for me, I 
do think there is a difference between <corr> and <supplied>.

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford