I'd agree that the two strategies (<handList> with <hand> vs. <handDesc>
with <handNote>) _more or less_ provide similar functionality (although
<hand> provides for much more detail in terms of possible
attributes...for better or worse). However, as Peter points out, in most
cases an encoder would want to, from within the body of the text, point
back to the appropriate <hand> or <handNote>, both of which would reside
in the header. If the <handList> element is removed, then wouldn't this
would make <handShift> ineffectual within the transcription module, and
since no similar element exists within the ms module (the guidelines
suggest using <handShift> as well), wouldn't that be an argument for
actually removing <handDesc> rather than <handList>? Or at the very
least moving <handShift> from the transcription module to the ms module?
Or perhaps a more appropriate strategy would be to merge the two... somehow.
Assistant Research Professor
Humanities Technology and Research Support Center
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
[log in to unmask]
Lou Burnard wrote:
> This raises a difficult question, which seems to have been overlooked.
> The <handList> element (which is made available by the PH module) more
> or less duplicates the functionality of the <handDesc> element (which is
> made available by the MS module). It makes little sense to provide
> both. My inclination would be to remove the former: what do others think?
> Peter Boot wrote:
>> In the before-P5 days we pointed from the <handShift> element to <hand>s
>> elements in the <handList>. Now in P5, if we are encoding a
>> manuscript, we
>> also have the <handDesc> element in the <msDescription>.
>> Question: is it still useful to list the manuscript hands in the
>> <handList> if we have a <handNote> element for each hand in the
>> <handDesc>? Can we just point to the <handNote> rather than to the
>> If we have the <handList> *and* the <handDesc> we'd need, I suppose, to
>> link the <hand>s and the corresponding <handNote>s (using the corresp
>> attribute?), as we'd want to be able to connect <handNote> to the places
>> that refer to the corresponding hands.