Sorry, Torsten, I didn't completely follow your request for changing
the distinction as discussed in the Guidelines. But I think the
intent is simple:
* <choice> and its children <sic> and <corr> are for cases where the
modern digital editor creating a TEI edition corrects something in
the source. Thus these elements have nothing to do with your use
* <subst> and its children <del> and <add> are for cases where the
document as it is being encoded already has had changes made.
You may wish to indicate that you (the modern digital editor creating
a TEI edition) believe that the deletion and addition were performed
for the purpose of correcting an apparent error. This seems like a
reasonable desire to me, which I suppose could be accommodated by use
of the type= attribute. (<add>, <del>, and <subst> all bear type= and
> > My position has always been that there is no distinction more
> > fundamental to textual scholarship than that between what is
> > actually present in the text and what isn't
> I'm all with you here...
> > by employing two separate pairs of elements, <sic> and <corr> for
> > editorial emendations, <add> and <del> for corrections made in
> > the manuscript itself.
> ...but isn't each <del> a <sic> and each <add> a <corr> if we look
> at the effect on the text (rather than at the "synthetic" semantics
> of TEI)?
> On the other hand: What would be the difference between <choice>
> and <subst> anyway? Is <choice> just the more generic element with
> no other semantics?
> In the text of the Guidelines we don't distinguish between <subst>
> and <choice>. Wouldn't it be reasonable to "move" the distinction
> between "in the source" and "in the edition" from the add/del and
> sic/corr pairs to the use of choice vs. subst? Wouldn't it
> "unburden" the former?
> (I already can hear Lou's comment on "breaking documents" here.)