On 24/08/2011 20:50, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> Thank you all for the thoughtful responses--so much wonderful brain
>> energy devoted to my particular problem. Ain't TEI-L grand!
> Yes (overall), it is.
>> I admit that I was really surprised to find that the canonical
>> approach would be to use<alt> ...
> "Canonical" might be a bit strong, here. But yes,<alt> seems to me
> to be a very powerful and useful construct.
>> ... clearly aimed at encoding problems of a different sort--those
>> that arise from indeterimacy *in the mind of the encoder*. ... Have
>> I overlooked something ... ?
> I don't think you've overlooked something, I think the Guidelines
> should include other forms of alternation, so it's clear this sort of
> case is included.
>> Two things still bother me about the proposed solution, though.
>> First, I dislike the thought of using an element to mark both
>> authorial and editorial indecision.
> I don't have a problem with this (at all) because type= (or subtype=)
> lets us differentiate, just as we do with<note>. But it would do the
> world a whole lot of good if TEI had an origin= attribute, or some
> such, special to the purpose, and for which there was a "suggested
> values include list". This would make interchange easier, as
> disparate projects that all have the seem need of differentiating
> authorial from editorial passages would (hopefully) all use the same
>> Second, what do I do with the information in @seq?
> What information in seq=?