Dear list,

It is my pleasure to invite you to test a new tool I am developping, called
the TEI Critical Edition Toolbox.

The current version of this online application can be found at the address
below, but at this "beta testing" stage its access is password-protected:
*If you wish to test the Toolbox, please send me a private message and I
will send you the login and password.*

You will find below a more detailed description of the purpse and features
of the TEI Critical Edition Toolbox.

Best regards,

The *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* is a tool for people preparing a
natively digital TEI critical edition. It offers facilities to display your
edition while it is still in the making, and check the consistency of your

The *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* can help you check editions encoded in
TEI with the parallel-segmentation method. If you are using a "positive"
apparatus, listing all the readings of all the manuscripts in the @wit
attributes of the <lem/> and/or <rdg/>, the application will be able to
detect all apparatus entries that do not use all the witnesses listed in a
<listWit/> in the header. Simply upload your TEI XML file, then use the
options in the Toolbox.
Basic principles

The *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* is a simple tool offering an easy
visualization for TEI XML critical editions. It especially targets the
needs of people working on natively digital editions. Its main purpose is
to provide editors with an easy way of visualizing their ongoing work
before it is finalized, and also to perform some automatic quality checks
on their encoding.

   - Your edition must be encoded in TEI with the Parallel Segmentation
   - You simply need a recent browser to access the application and upload
   your XML file (nothing to install).

Simple visualization

Tools like Diple or the Versioning Machine <> are very
efficient for finished editions, but they may not be well adapted to
ongoing work. For instance, an ongoing edition is likely to present only
app elements with only rdg children, or to present a mix of app elements
with only rdg children and others with both a lem and rdg children.
Proposing a visualization for such encoding is not easy, because there is
no base text (yet).

The *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* accepts both types of app elements (rdg
only, or lem and rdg), even in the same file. It will display each type
slightly differently:

   - In both cases, the content of lem and rdg are highlighted, with a white
   - When the app contains a lem, only the content of the lem is displayed
   in the text (in order to make the apparatus lighter and more readable), and
   the variants appear in a pop-up note. To see the note, simply hover over
   the ↑ sign just after the content of the lem.
   - When the app contains only rdg, the content of each is displayed, in
   the order of appearance in the app. To make the text better readable, curly
   brackets open and close each series of rdg belonging in the same app. For
   clarity's sake, empty readings are materialized with a minus sign, "-".
   - When the encoding uses reading groups (rdgGrp), the content of each
   rdgGrp is displayed between bold double parenthesis. If the rdgGrp contains
   a lem, its text is underlined.

In the toolbox, you will have the option of showing or hiding the page
breaks, either all of them, or for a particular witness. To do so, you will
need to have used the witness ID in the @ed of the pb tag.
The page breaks are displayed in a slighly different manner if you choose
"all" or only individual witnesses.
If you choose to display all page breaks, they will appear inline, keep the
text readable.
If you choose to display pagebreaks for an individual witness, we assume
that you are particularly interested in it and we display the page breaks
more visibly, with a thin blue line representing each break.
Checking the consistency of your encoding

Encoding a natively digital critical edition with a positive apparatus,
where all variants are mentioned for all manuscripts, is a good way to make
sure you have not forgotten any reading in any manuscript. This is a useful
practice during the preparation of the edition, even if you intend to
mention only variants from a default lemma in your final edition.
It is frequent for editors to make mistakes, like introducing a typo in the
siglum of a manuscript, or simply forgetting to mention which reading is
found in one of the witnesses. This is why critical editions require many
proofreading sessions. The *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* will not replace
those sessions, but it can help you perform consistency checks on your
Features for editions with a "positive" apparatus

If you have made a "positive" apparatus (all the available witnesses are
expressly mentioned in each app), the *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* can
identify all the apparatus entries wich do not give a reading for each of
the witnesses you will have listed in a listWit in the header. To perform
this verification, check *Highlight apparatus entries that do not use all
witnesses?* in the Toolbox. The incomplete apparatus entries will be
highlighted in red.
You are also offered the option of highlighting only the apparatus entries
that do not use a particular witness. This can be useful to avoid noise
when you have several unfinished collations. Each witness is assigned a
different colour automatically. There are 20 assigned colours, if you have
more than 20 witnesses the colour cycle will begin again.
Features for editions with a "negative" apparatus

If you have a "negative" apparatus (defaut text in a lemma without @wit),
you can use the *TEI Critical Edition Toolbox* to highlight apparatus
entries that DO mention a particular witness in the variants. In the
toolbox, select the witness in the section *Highlight apparatus entries
that mention a particular witness?*.
Other controls

The "Various controls" rubric in the Toolbox lets you select other options
which might be useful in both types of encoding: highlighting app entries
that contain a lem, or app entries that contain only rdg elements, or app
entries where the same witness appears more than once, or where no witness
at all is mentionned (probably due to an encoding mistake, in both cases).