David and I here at Rotunda have some semi-diplomatic transcriptions in 
the Alexander Hamilton Papers that sometimes contain the following 
situation:

http://mf3vb.ei.virginia.edu/subst.jpg

As it is on the page, I would hesitate to interpret “Theorists” on the 
baseline as a case of “restored” or “stet”, and it's certainly not a 
case for <del>.

To my mind, this is a word substitution where explicit cancellation is 
not marked; since the insertion “Speculatists” was cancelled, my guess 
would be that the reason was a “mid-substitution” change of mind on the 
author's part.

More generically, it is the case of text that has no distinctive 
features other than the fact that it is clearly part of a substitution.

We considered two solutions for this:

(1) schema modification to allow mixed content inside <subst>
(2) schema modification to allow <seg> inside <subst> (cf. David's 
question datestamped 2011-01-07 under FR ticket #2859355)

FWIW, we decided on (2), thus:

<subst>
<seg>Theorists</seg>
<add>
<del>Speculatists</del>
</add>
</subst>

If anyone has suggestions for a more elegant solution under P5, we would 
be grateful to hear about them (maybe under a separate thread?).

Thanks much!

Markus

Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> TEI Council has recently been discussing the correct content model of 
> tei:subst. It is our considered opinion (see 
> http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3393244 ) that the only appropriate children of 
> tei:subst are tei:add and tei:del.
>
> The schema and the guidelines currently allow the elements (corr orig 
> reg sic unclear app damage restore supplied surplus) in subst, but in 
> opinion this is an error, and we propose to fix it in the future. 
> (These may all of course be children of add or del, which would be the 
> appropriate way to nest them inside one part or the other of a 
> substitution.)
>
> Because we are concerned with backward compatibility and finding a 
> sensible path toward deprecation of old content models, we would like 
> to hear on-list from anybody who uses or has used any element other 
> than add and del as a direct child of subst. Will your XML be broken 
> by future versions of the TEI schema that restrict this usage? What 
> were these elements attempting to represent? Can we find a more 
> canonical way to express what you were trying to say with this 
> combination of elements?
>
> Please pass this question on to any TEI users you know who may not be 
> on this mailing list.
>
> Best,
>
> Gabby
>

-- 
Markus Flatscher, Editorial and Technical Specialist

ROTUNDA, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 400314, Charlottesville VA 22904, USA
Courier: 211 Emmet Street South, Charlottesville VA 22903, USA
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/