Just a footnote to say that I do agree with Elena's clarification below.
My attempts to fit the problematic examples given into subst containing
only add and del were meant to show how we should mark up cases where
the physical representation is not obviously "erasure", but the intent
to substitute one text with another is clear (enough to satisfy the
editor, at least). Where this is not the case, then <subst> is probably
not the solution (and certainly not with editorial elements such as
orig, sic, etc. inside it).
On 2011-08-23 12:14, Pierazzo, Elena wrote:
> I think that the point is that the examples reported by Brett represent
> alternatives where, while there are a few added proposals, there isn't any
> clear decision on which of the alternatives have been accepted and which,
> by consequence, have been deleted.
> So that's why the genetic group has suggested a sequence of<segs> and an
> <alt/> element (as suggested by Gerrit and Lou), and avoiding to use
> <subst>,<add> and<del> and this is because, even if the author never
> decided which was the right choice, he for sure did not wanted that they
> were all present at once. We called these "additions to the document" but
> not "additions to the text".
> The problem of the encoding being, of course, that<seg> does not have a
> @place so we need a @rend="above" or similar.
> (By the way: the presence of alternatives is one of the reasons why Daniel
> Ferrer has declared that a draft is not a text, but a protocol to make a
> On 23/08/2011 11:28, "Bodard, Gabriel"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The trouble with the solution proposed by Brett below, in my view, is
>> that<orig> represents text that "follows the original", i.e. the MS
>> reading, as opposed to text that has been normalized by the editor.
>> As I argued in my previous email on this subject, I would represent the
>> replaced text, "Gully", without any obvious deletion mark as del
>> @rend="corrected" or @rend="replaced" or similar, since the very
>> presence of a correction/replacement (if that's how you interpret the
>> two<add>s) deprecates the first reading.
>> If the physical appearance of the text on the page is what matters, then
>> @rend="unmarked" might be more appropriate on the<del>, I suppose.
>> Either way, I don't think this is a good use of<orig>, which is an
>> editorial element. Whatever has or hasn't been done to the word "Gully",
>> it's the (or a) scribe who has or hasn't done it, not the editor.
>> On 2011-08-23 00:34, Brett Barney wrote:
>>> <orig seq="1">Gully</orig>
>>> <add rend="unmarked" place="supralinear" seq="2">Goolly</add>
>>> <add rend="unmarked" place="supralinear" seq="3">Gwolly</add>
>>> </subst>, 84 Broadway
>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>> (Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
>> Department of Digital Humanities
>> King's College London
>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>> London WC2B 5RL
>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>> Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>> Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)
Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980