When you say "inside each witness", are you referring to the <witness> element in <listWit>? It would certainly seem a reasonable extension to permit <handNotes> here, but no-one has thus far requested it. Maybe you should submit a feature request!
The BVH people seem quite happy using handNote within handDesc, giving each hand an ID unique to the document, and then pointing to it with @resp (or <handShift>). But that's probably because (like others?) they are not interested in collating variations to make an apparatus.
<handNote xml:id="B759999999_Y2_2164_Main1">Parait plus authentique, sans doute Rabelais lui-même d'après Mireille Huchon</handNote>
<handNote xml:id="B759999999_Y2_2164_Main2">Semble plus tardive, notamment dans son utilisation des conventions. Peut-être XIXème siècle</handNote>
<handNote xml:id="B759999999_Y2_2164_MainX">Main incertaine</handNote>
</choice> lecteurs benevoles.
On 30/11/15 16:57, Hugh Cayless wrote:
I'd like to know how producers of critical editions in TEI usually handle
the documentation of hands in their documents. I'm working with an edition
that has this kind of thing:
genista] genestra λ¹δ, genesta εγμλ²χ²
so MS. λ has "genestra" in the first hand, corrected to "genesta" in the
second (the edition doesn't actually tell us how this works in the MS). I
want to associate λ1 and λ2 with λ.
The situation with describing hands seems rather confusing. In msDesc, we
have a handDesc, which contains handNotes, but you can also have handNotes
inside the profileDesc. I'd really like to do neither of these, but rather
list the hands inside each witness. I could do this by embedding msDesc
inside witness, but that's rather overkill, since msDesc requires
msIdentifier, which, while it does contain the same info as will go in the
witness, also forces me to encode it in a structured way rather than in
So my questions are: how do you all do this? Does handNote need some
cleaning up? Should I not use handNote at all for this sort of thing?