Elena Pierazzo wrote:
> I see a fundamental ambiguity in using <corr> for both circumstances.
If <corr> were indeed so used for two significantly distinct purposes in the
same encoding scheme, applied to the same text or corpus, then yes, that
encoding scheme could be described as "ambiguous" and to that extent
defective. But that ambiguity would stem from the encoder's decision, not
from the Guidelines. And the defect would be of the encoder's making (though
the Guidelines could be faulted for giving no assistance with how to avoid
it). If it is possible to use <corr> and friends consistently and
exclusively along one of the disparate strands separately laid out in the
Guidelines, then the supplied tagsets can do the job fine, though it would
be advisable to document which of the interpretations and usages had been
chosen. If such consistent use is not possible, given the way a project
needs to encode its specific texts, then the solution is to extend the
tagset to allow correction and emendation to be clearly distinguished.
> but ... there is just <del> that encodes both scribe deletions and
> text the has been rejected as superfluous by an editor.
Not according to the Guidelines, it doesn't, which here, unlike in the case
of <corr>, speak with a single voice, though what that voice says plainly
doesn't cover an important encoding need.
<del> is described thus:
"contains a letter, word or passage deleted, marked as deleted, or otherwise
indicated as superfluous or spurious in the copy text by an author, scribe,
annotator, or corrector."
Now although at a macro-semantic level, the Guidelines sometimes conjoin
disparate strata without sufficient attention to resolving apparent
conflicts or contradictions, at the micro level of individual descriptions
their phrasing is admirably meticulous and precise. We can be sure the the
words "in the copy text" are placed where they are in that sentence with
careful forethought, meaning that the item marked as superfluous or
spurious(no matter whose brain or hand thus marks it) is located in the copy
text, not the encoded or edited outcome. So there is no provision here for
the use of <del> to indicate an editorial deletion of material present in
that copy text. For the selfsame reason, when we read a little later in
"The <add> and <del> elements defined in the core tag set available in all
TEI documents will suffice for describing typically brief additions and
deletions in the text being transcribed"
we can be confident that the preposition "in" near the end of the sentence
was chosen with deliberation and means what it says. If the intention had
been to refer to, or encompass "... deletions applied to the text being
transcribed" then the phrasing would have been different.
Once more, if the use of <del> as so clearly stated fits a project's needs,
then it can be used forthwith. However, if a project decides to use it
unequivocally to mark editorial deletions, the situation is somewhat murky.
With <corr> it is possible to choose to use that element in one (only) of
the two distinct senses plainly and explicitly allowed for in the Guidelines
and to document that choice. However, if <del> as defined in the Guidelines
does not meet a project's needs, I wouldn't say that using it in a
significantly different way fell within the scope of something that could be
accommodated by documentation alone. If an element with a different meaning
is required, whether or not that element needs to co-exist with <del>s
deployed in the way the Guidelines envisaged, then the case for an extension
seems to me unanswerable.