You are allowed to supply @change to any element you whant: to what you call "editorial and original divisions" and even to single chunk elements (<l> and the like).
However, I would prefer to keep these two views on the text ("structural" vs. "genetic") separate. Both views frequently overlap so that one view typically does not well fit into the other.
This is why we use the generic <milestone/> with @change.
I am not sure whether I fully understand your use of @n and @type.
Information about, say, the chronological order of stages is stored in the respective <change> element in the header, the xml:id of which you point to with @change.
Am 12.02.2015 um 08:12 schrieb Antonio Rojas Castro:
Dear TEI list,
I'm editing a text that I believe was written across several temporal stages or phases. This is, however, only an interpretation based on the examination of the existing manuscripts that I have collated -- and by that I mean that there's no such a mark on the documents.
I'd like to add these stages to my encoding so I have been considering two options:
- to use <span> with attributes @from @to to identify <l> swith @xml:id
- to simply use a <milestone/> with attributes @n and @type to specify the stages
What do you think would be the best approach to this? None of them?Any other alternative?
Eventually I'd like for the user to be able to navigate through these stages and confront them with the editorial and original divisions -- marked obviously with <div>.
-- Gerrit Brüning Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main | Institut für deutsche Literatur und ihre Didaktik Freies Deutsches Hochstift Historisch-kritische Edition von Goethes Faust