The standard rendition in print would be something like:
1 , ] om. B
"om." stands for "omission", and it should be rendered in italics in the apparatus, as all text that does not belong in a witness.
If the lemma is empty where other witnesses have a comma, it would be:
1 , add. B
"add." stands for "addition", and it should be rendered in italics in the apparatus.
What looks a bit weird to me is that your variants are punctuation marks, since I am not used to considering punctuation in editions. But if it were "regular" text, that is definitely how it would be done.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Chris Forster" <[log in to unmask]>
À: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Dimanche 29 Novembre 2015 17:39:43
Objet: Appearance of <app> with empty <lem> or <rdg>
This is not, strictly speaking, a TEI question so much as a question about the conventions of critical editions, but I suspect folks here might have some relevant ideas/experience. If you have an apparatus where a <lem> or a <rdg> is empty, how does one represent it in, for instance, a print apparatus (if transforming, say, to LaTeX)? I'm trying to mark up all differences in a set of poems and often I find that one version has punctuation that another version simply lacks. For instance (this example is entirely invented):
<l>I will arise and go now<app><lem wit="#A">,</lem><rdg wit="#B" /></app> and go to Innisfree</l>
Here the variant reading in B has nothing; in an apparatus how would one represent this? What is the convention? In a print edition (I've been using LaTeX and reledmac, for instance) would it look something like:
1 , ] *missing*
What if it were the base text which had nothing where another witness had something (i.e. the <lem> is empty, but a <rdg> or <rdgs> exist in other witnesses), how would one mark that? (Again, I'm particularly interested in how this is/could be handled in a print/PDF; on the web I've tried, for instance, changing the background color with CSS).
Thanks very much. Best,