Daniel O'Donnell schreef:
> Would you not attach the "missing" readings to the last piece of lemma?
> <lem>This is the day</lem>
> <wit>This is the day that was</wit>
> <wit>this is the day</wit>
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion, but what if lines are encoded
It seems missing lines should be encoded as follows:
<l>This is the day</l>
<rdg wit="#wit1">that was</rdg>
But strictly speaking, this misrepresents the text structure for both
the base text as wit2, that don't have this particular line.
Any thoughts on this?
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:12 -0700, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> I'm working with the critical apparatus tags at the moment (textcrit
>> module) and I have a fairly simple question. A standard set of readings
>> can be encoded like this:
>> <app loc="#xyz.24">
>> <lem>[The base text version, if required]</lem>
>> <rdg wit="#wit1">First witness variant</rdg>
>> <rdg wit="#wit2">Second witness variant</rdg>
>> My question is: what's the preferred approach when a particular line
>> doesn't exist in the base text, but it does in some witnesses? Various
>> approaches suggest themselves, including an empty <lem> element and a
>> type attribute on the <app> element signifying that the variants have no
>> parallel in the base text. Since this situation must come up fairly
>> frequently, I'm wondering what methods others might have used.
>> All help appreciated,