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 other.

Magdalena

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} hab.de

Handschriftendatenbank: http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss