Just some more plain questions on encoding, not because I want you to
work for me, but in order to line up with others' established
* Some fractions are defined in the ISO lists, like 1/7, but others are
not, like 5/11. Also, there is an entity representing `c/o'
(&incare), but none for the similar `a/c'. Would you suggest:
(1) using ISO &frac17 for the one and Non-ISO &frac5.11 (or so) for
the other, resp. &incare for the one and (say) &aoverc for the
(2) in order to achieve more uniformity (in rendering, e.g.), use
Non-ISO entities for all of them -- the replacement text for those
in ISO could be their ISO entity name again, but would not have to
(3) for the fractions, use a completely different scheme, like <num
value="5/11" type=fraction> or even (please no) <num
* When providing a new entity set along with a document (for example,
with the above fraction and `a/c' symbol), how do you document it --
only with an entity file containing
<!ENTITY frac5.11 SDATA "[frac5.11]" -- fraction 5/11 -- >
<!ENTITY aoverc SDATA "[aoverc]" -- symbol a/c -- >
<!ENTITY longs SDATA "[longs]" -- letter long s -- >
or with a full wsd, including maybe a TeX/Metafont fragment for the
glyph, or something like this?
* Does anybody use the very replacement text of entities to provide TeX
code or ASCII transliteration or whatever in their local processing?
Or do you replace the standard replacement text (as in the above
example) with post-processors?
* I have three distinctly different forms of <app> in my document, some
of them could even need subtyping. Would you, when you get such a
document, prefer it to use only <app> tags differentiated by type=
attribute, or would you rather see three new tags, like <appSources>,
<appPrintVariants> and <appSynopsis>? (The same question of type=
versus <tag> arises rather frequently, I suppose.) In principle, the
solutions are equivalent, of course, but practical life might suggest
one over the other.
* How would you encode into an <app> or <rdg> that
(1) the location of the variant (inserted text) is only editorially
(2) the document of entry (the witness) of the variant is only
(3) the text supplied or deleted is only editorially inferred (on the
ground of other changes)?
* The Green Book says in section 18.1.5 on page 542f, that a sequence of
deletions and additions should/could be encoded in the following way:
One must have lived longer with -this- system to ...
One must have lived longer with
<rdg varSeq=2><del><add>such a</></>
This seems confusing to me, since the <app> and the <del> and <add>
somehow interfere, maybe because their meanings overlap here. If I
wanted to reproduce a clean reading text of the first stage of
development in a text like this, for example, I'd generally follow the
thread of varSeq=1, but would eliminate deleted material (and keep
added material); this would leave me here without the deleted `this'
and without a replacement.
A more consistent solution seems to me to do away with the <del> and
<add> as soon as <app> enters the stage, like in:
One must have lived longer with
<rdg varSeq=2>such a
What do the authors/editors (no TM :-) of chapter 18 think about this,
and how do more experienced manuscript transcribers handle these
Thankfully yours --
(_) Tobias Rischer
"===' [log in to unmask]