We are also thinking about
or something similar.
But in the present case I would prefer the following solution:
Markus objects that "Theorists" is "certainly not a case for <del>".
But if the whole thing is a substitution, and "Speculatists" is added, a
correlate is needed. <seg> seems irresolute to me. The strikeout on the
visual level may be prevented by an attribute. Definition of <del> is
matched by the addition of "Speculists" and the fact that they cannot
coexist in the passage.
In the case that only <del> and <add> are allowed as direct children to
So I can see no problem with the proposal "only to use add and del".
However, I agree that there are also cases where a substutition is not
carried out and then undone, but only considered
We still search for a proper solution.
Am 20.08.2011 17:19, schrieb Syd Bauman:
> Hmmm ... so you're not letting me duck the hard question, then. Sigh.
> So your thought experiment is that we have an MS that looks as your
> letterpress edition does, but we have evidence that the authorial
> intent was to substitute the word "Theorists" with the word
> "Speculatists", but then had second thoughts and decided not to?
> This, in my mind, is not a substitution, but rather an aborted
> substitution, for which the TEI has no dedicated element. I have to
> admit that I haven't thought much about how to encode aborted
> substitutions before, but off the top of my head I would be inclined
> to either put status="aborted" (or some such) on<subst>, or (better
> yet) status="intendedSubstitution" on the<add> w/o a<subst>.
> Possibilities follow.
> <subst status="aborted">
> This one is way weird, both because now<del> has a completely
> different semantic when it's inside subst[@status="aborted"] and
> because the rend= of the<add> (if I provided it) would be
> <del status="abortedSubstitution"><add status="intendedSubstitution">Speculatists</add></del>
> Some might (appropriately) consider this stretching the meaning of
> status=, which is for "the effect of the intervention", not the
> intent of the intervention.
> Better still, use the genetic encoding module, and describe what
> happened in prose in<stageNote>s, perhaps indicating that the
> addition was undone with an<undo> (or just<del>, or both, as I've
> shown here):
> <ge:stageNote xml:id="sn01">
> <p>Word<mentioned>Speculatists</mentioned> inserted
> supralinearly, apparently in an aborted act of
> substituting<mentioned>Speculatists</mentioned> for
> <ge:stageNote xml:id="sn02">
> <p>The supralinear addition of
> <mentioned>Speculatists</mentioned> was deleted,
> allowing<mentioned>Theorists</mentioned> to stand as
> the end reading.</p>
> <!-- ... -->
> <ge:undo stage="#sn02" target="#add43"/>
> <del stage="#sn02"><add xml:id="add43" stage="#sn01">Speculatists</add></del> Theorists ...
>> in principle, your suggestion is feasible, and may turn out to be
>> the case if checked against the manuscript page. However, based on
>> the rendering/typesetting conventions of this particular
>> letterpress edition, I'd tend to disagree: horizontal alignment
>> like this seems to consistently indicate a substitution;
>> insertions, on the other hand, are consistently rendered in one of
>> the following ways, depending on the presence and location of
>> insertion marks in MS:
>> * baseline caret and/or supralinear caret (carets can themselves be
>> struck out)
>> * in the absence of any insertion marks in MS, the word is
>> horizontally positioned to indicate the logical insertion point
>> in the text
>> So if it were an insertion, as you suggest below, based on the
>> conventions of the letterpress typesetting, I would expect to see
>> "Speculatists" positioned to the left of "Theorists" (assuming
>> there was no insertion mark). (If this doesn't make sense in
>> writing, I can provide an example from the print edition.)
>> Thought experiment: For the sake of the argument, let's assume (1)
>> that the example appears in MS exactly like on printed page, and
>> that (2) we had strong supporting evidence that the authorial
>> intent was in fact substitution, e.g. in the form of an authorial
>> errata list or diary entry or what have you. Given those premises,
>> how would you encode it?