Print

Print


Daniel O'Donnell schreef:
> Would you not attach the "missing" readings to the last piece of lemma?
>
> <app>
> <lem>This is the day</lem>
> <wit>This is the day that was</wit>
> <wit>this is the day</wit>
> </app>
>
>   
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the suggestion, but what if lines are encoded 
as <l>?

It seems missing lines should be encoded as follows:

<l>This is the day</l>
<l>
  <app>
    <lem/>
    <rdg wit="#wit1">that was</rdg>
    <rdg wit="#wit2"/>
  </app>
</l>

But strictly speaking, this misrepresents the text structure for both 
the base text as wit2, that don't have this particular line.

Any thoughts on this?

Ron
> On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 15:12 -0700, Martin Holmes wrote:
>   
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I'm working with the critical apparatus tags at the moment (textcrit 
>> module) and I have a fairly simple question. A standard set of readings 
>> can be encoded like this:
>>
>> <app loc="#xyz.24">
>>    <lem>[The base text version, if required]</lem>
>>    <rdg wit="#wit1">First witness variant</rdg>
>>    <rdg wit="#wit2">Second witness variant</rdg>
>> </app>
>>
>> My question is: what's the preferred approach when a particular line 
>> doesn't exist in the base text, but it does in some witnesses? Various 
>> approaches suggest themselves, including an empty <lem> element and a 
>> type attribute on the <app> element signifying that the variants have no 
>> parallel in the base text. Since this situation must come up fairly 
>> frequently, I'm wondering what methods others might have used.
>>
>> All help appreciated,
>> Martin
>>