I agree with James's usage, similar as mine. Maybe we could say that <corr/> is for "trivial" corrections on the level of spelling, weird word order, word-written-instead-of-another, etc., when <supplied/> is always additive and used for more "essential" corrections to the text, with elements that may be less evident than the corrections in <corr/> / <sic/>, where the editor mkes more of an editorial decision than a mere evident spelling correction.
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 188.8.131.52 [...]
should be used in preference to <corr>."
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?
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:
<corr>A mistake here</corr>
<corr>A mist<supplied>a</supplied>ke <supplied>here</supplied></corr>
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>.
Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
Computing Services, University of Oxford