> Thank you all for the thoughtful responses--so much wonderful brain
> energy devoted to my particular problem. Ain't TEI-L grand!
Yes (overall), it is.
> I admit that I was really surprised to find that the canonical
> approach would be to use <alt> ...
"Canonical" might be a bit strong, here. But yes, <alt> seems to me
to be a very powerful and useful construct.
> ... clearly aimed at encoding problems of a different sort--those
> that arise from indeterimacy *in the mind of the encoder*. ... Have
> I overlooked something ... ?
I don't think you've overlooked something, I think the Guidelines
should include other forms of alternation, so it's clear this sort of
case is included.
> Two things still bother me about the proposed solution, though.
> First, I dislike the thought of using an element to mark both
> authorial and editorial indecision.
I don't have a problem with this (at all) because type= (or subtype=)
lets us differentiate, just as we do with <note>. But it would do the
world a whole lot of good if TEI had an origin= attribute, or some
such, special to the purpose, and for which there was a "suggested
values include list". This would make interchange easier, as
disparate projects that all have the seem need of differentiating
authorial from editorial passages would (hopefully) all use the same
> Second, what do I do with the information in @seq?
What information in seq=?