I'd vote against (a) on the grounds of semantic non-equivalence, and
then would decide between (b) and (c) on the basis of analogy across
your encoding. Funny, I can come up with arguments for both choices,
depending on what assumptions I make about project-wide priorities and
Some initial questions that come to mind are:
- Will your <w>s carry IDs? And if so, for what purpose(s)?
- Do you envision using <choice> for anything else than hyphenated words?
On 11/06/15 15:28, Torsten Schassan wrote:
> Dear all,
> in our editions we usually wrap words (tokens) that go across lines in
> <w>, e.g. <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>.
> Now, that word is abbreviated and that fact would be represented using
> Would you say <choice> works on the same level as <w> thus only one of
> them is needed, or not? Indeed, <w> is part of model.segLike while
> <choice> can contain larger portions of text thus belonging to
> model.linePart and model.pPart.editorial.
> Which encoding option would you consider be best?
> a: mutually exclusiveness
> either just <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>
> b: <w> inside
> c: <w> outside
> Curious, best, Torsten