If you want to record the written marks (i.e., if your general approach
is "documentary") <metamark> could well fit to your needs.
To encode the *meaning* of the marks (the correction of the separate
spelling) seems less trivial. I would always hesitate to add and delete
mere whitespace (as Syd suggested) and prefer the following:
This would be a more "text-focussed" way of encoding
Am 06.10.2012 16:27, schrieb Syd Bauman:
> My first thought is
> qui<add hand="#scribe2" rend="insertedSlash"> </add>a<del
> hand="#scribe2" rend="joined"> </del>etoliam
> although this has the disadvantage that there is no explicit
> indication that these two acts are directly related to one another.
>> I'm a new member of the list. Please excuse me if my question has
>> already been covered here. I couldn't find it in the archives.
>> I'm transcribing a medieval Latin manuscript that has two distinct
>> hands. One of them wrote the text, the other one corrected the
>> first one's work. I'm having difficulty figuring out how to encode
>> the second hand's interventions. They mainly take the form of marks
>> that either join two letters originally and incorrectly separated
>> by a space or separate two letters originally and incorrectly
>> For example, the first hand wrote quia etoliam, but the second hand
>> corrected that to qui aetoliam by inserting a slash between the "i"
>> and "a" in the original quia and by drawing a line joining the "a"
>> with the "e" of the original etoliam.
>> The <metamark> element seems almost, but not quite, right here,
>> since it would be cumbersome to use the @target or @span attributes
>> every time this happens. Does anyone have any better suggestions?
Gerrit Brüning, M.A.
Historisch-kritische Edition von Goethes Faust | Genetic Edition of Goethe's Faust | faustedition.net
Freies Deutsches Hochstift | Großer Hirschgraben 23-25 | 60311 Frankfurt am Main | Fon +49(0)69-13880-292