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:
> John <subst>
> <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