David and I here at Rotunda have some semi-diplomatic transcriptions in
the Alexander Hamilton Papers that sometimes contain the following
As it is on the page, I would hesitate to interpret “Theorists” on the
baseline as a case of “restored” or “stet”, and it's certainly not a
case for <del>.
To my mind, this is a word substitution where explicit cancellation is
not marked; since the insertion “Speculatists” was cancelled, my guess
would be that the reason was a “mid-substitution” change of mind on the
More generically, it is the case of text that has no distinctive
features other than the fact that it is clearly part of a substitution.
We considered two solutions for this:
(1) schema modification to allow mixed content inside <subst>
(2) schema modification to allow <seg> inside <subst> (cf. David's
question datestamped 2011-01-07 under FR ticket #2859355)
FWIW, we decided on (2), thus:
If anyone has suggestions for a more elegant solution under P5, we would
be grateful to hear about them (maybe under a separate thread?).
Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> TEI Council has recently been discussing the correct content model of
> tei:subst. It is our considered opinion (see
> http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3393244 ) that the only appropriate children of
> tei:subst are tei:add and tei:del.
> The schema and the guidelines currently allow the elements (corr orig
> reg sic unclear app damage restore supplied surplus) in subst, but in
> opinion this is an error, and we propose to fix it in the future.
> (These may all of course be children of add or del, which would be the
> appropriate way to nest them inside one part or the other of a
> Because we are concerned with backward compatibility and finding a
> sensible path toward deprecation of old content models, we would like
> to hear on-list from anybody who uses or has used any element other
> than add and del as a direct child of subst. Will your XML be broken
> by future versions of the TEI schema that restrict this usage? What
> were these elements attempting to represent? Can we find a more
> canonical way to express what you were trying to say with this
> combination of elements?
> Please pass this question on to any TEI users you know who may not be
> on this mailing list.
Markus Flatscher, Editorial and Technical Specialist
ROTUNDA, The University of Virginia Press
PO Box 400314, Charlottesville VA 22904, USA
Courier: 211 Emmet Street South, Charlottesville VA 22903, USA
Email: [log in to unmask]