What on earth is that empty <am/> doing in your example James?

If the source actually  read exāple, the a-with a macron might  be inside the <am> I suppose. Or did you mean to put a floating macron in there?

Either way, I can hear Matthew Driscoll using the word "nutty".
 

On 18/07/17 16:09, James Cummings wrote:
[log in to unmask]">Hi Sebastiaan,

I would always wrap it in <expan> however this is probably scriptable in XSLT from what you have, so it doesn't necessarily need to be done by hand by the encoders. Indeed I think it would be fairly straightforward to go from
exa<ex>m</ex>ple
to
<choice>
   <abbr>exa<am/>ple</abbr>
   <expan>exa<ex>m</ex>ple</expan>
</choice>
At least for values of orthographic, whitespace/punctuation separated words with no other markup in them. ;-)
-james

On 18/07/17 15:44, Sebastiaan Verweij wrote:
Dear all

A brief question: I’m considering not using the <expan> tags while transcribing a large body of seventeenth century mss. I note that the TEI P5 guidelines give a range of examples for <ex>, which we will use, and it seems optional to surround the entire expanded word with the <expan> tags (to mark its boundaries in some way). E.g.,

exa<ex>m</ex>ple
or
<expan>exa<ex>m</ex>ple</expan>

Our rationale is mainly around time saving, so I was wondering if you have a view on this in terms of TEI practice. Is there a good reason to retain <expan> if this will not add any functionality to our project? Have you omitted these tags in the past and wished you hadn’t? Thanks so much.

Sebastiaan


Dr Sebastiaan Verweij
Lecturer in Late-Medieval and Early Modern English Literature
University of Bristol
(+44) (0) 117 92 88090