Dear Torsten,

I think the third option is probably most typical situation - the
abbreviation is at the word level so you can wrap the <choice> in a <w>.

As to why you want to mark up words it's a whole different story. You said "in
our editions we usually wrap words (tokens) that go across lines in <w>,
e.g. <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>". Are they the only words you mark with <w>? If
so, why do they deserve this special treatment? I think only answering
these questions would allow to judge one way of encoding "better" than the


On 11 June 2015 at 14:28, Torsten Schassan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear all,
> in our editions we usually wrap words (tokens) that go across lines in
> <w>, e.g. <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>.
> Now, that word is abbreviated and that fact would be represented using
> choice/abbr+expan.
> Would you say <choice> works on the same level as <w> thus only one of
> them is needed, or not? Indeed, <w> is part of model.segLike while
> <choice> can contain larger portions of text thus belonging to
> model.linePart and model.pPart.editorial.
> Which encoding option would you consider be best?
> a: mutually exclusiveness
> either just <w>con=<lb/>silio</w>
> or
> <choice>
>   <abbr>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</abbr>
>   <expan>con=<lb/>silio</expan>
> </choice>
> b: <w> inside
> <choice>
>   <abbr><w>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</w></abbr>
>   <expan><w>con=<lb/>silio</w></expan>
> </choice>
> c: <w> outside
> <w>
>   <choice>
>     <abbr>co&#x0304;=<lb/>silio</abbr>
>     <expan>con=<lb/>silio</expan>
>   </choice>
> </w>
> Curious, best, Torsten
> --
> Torsten Schassan
> Digitale Editionen
> Abteilung Handschriften und Sondersammlungen
> Herzog August Bibliothek, Postfach 1364, D-38299 Wolfenbuettel
> Tel.: +49-5331-808-130 (Fax -165), schassan {at}
> Handschriftendatenbank: