On 18/08/18 18:16, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> Dear David,
> I would say it ought to say *should* (and I may just go ahead and fix it
> unless there are objections).
I think that would be right, and in accordance with practice.
> On Aug 18, 2018, at 07:03, Birnbaum, David J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> The Guidelines, at
>> say that:
>> An omission in one witness may be encoded using an empty rdg,
The implication would seem to be that omitting the <rdg> for a witness
means that the witness is identical to the lemmatic form, so using an
empty <rdg/> indicates two things: a) this witness omits the material;
and b) no, I have not forgotten to include a rdg for this witness just
because the witness omits the material.