Thanks for sending the report on the issues raised at Norway. Very
interesting! Has the character set group looked at issues raised by
manuscripts (many of which lead to ambiguity?)
- the use of multiple symbols to represent a single character
(within a single document)
- changing formulation of symbols representing characters over time
- the presence of particular standard hands, e.g. Court hand,
- the use of non-character symbols, e.g. shapes representing days
of the week or used as marks in place of signatures (which may be
'x's, shapes representing a trade or unknown shapes)
- minims, which may need to be encoded where the transcriber
cannot determine the word but can count the number of minims
- diacritic-style abbreviations in standard use in medieval/early medieval
to represent endings or duplicate letters (for example); these may
cover several letters and may be ambiguous (e.g. a crossed 'p'
may be 'per', 'par' or even 'pro' depending upon the context).
- notes on the hand, e.g. that it is shaky, disciplined, in a different
colour ink, similar to the one used above
These features need to be encoded because they may help to identify
both reading and authorship of texts/documents.
Working Party, History
University of Glasgow