On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 18:34 +0200, Ron Van den Branden wrote:
> Daniel O'Donnell schreef:
> > Would you not attach the "missing" readings to the last piece of lemma?
> > <app>
> > <lem>This is the day</lem>
> > <wit>This is the day that was</wit>
> > <wit>this is the day</wit>
> > </app>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion, but what if lines are encoded
> as <l>?
> It seems missing lines should be encoded as follows:
> <l>This is the day</l>
> <rdg wit="#wit1">that was</rdg>
> <rdg wit="#wit2"/>
> 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?
Interesting. Ideally you'd want to do it like this, though you can't
because app and lem and rdg can't contain chunks:
<lem><l>This is day</l></lem>
<rdg><l>This is the day</l></rdg>
<rdg><l>This is the day</l><l>that was</l></rdg>
That you should be able to do this is suggested by at least one use case
(Kantl's very own: De teleurgang van den Waterhoek, where notes are
[mis]used to encode what is really an apparatus that is based on the
paragraph). In my print dissertation, I also had a couple of examples of
this where this is how I arranged my print apparatus.
This is more evidence in my view that choice and choice like things like
app are not part of the chunk-inter-phrase hierarchy but really some
kind of meta element.
> > 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>
> >> </app>
> >> 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,
> >> Martin