I am also inclined to view <handList> as being now superseded by <handDesc>; it
is at least hard me for to see any justification for preferring the former over
the latter. I suppose, though, that if one were not encoding a "manuscript" per
se, but still needed to indicate handshifts, one wouldn't necessarily want to
use <msDescription>. Still, it seems a small price to pay for consistency.
> 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 <hand>?
> > 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.
> > Peter