In our project, we prefer to encode the expansion, because some 
abbreviations are ambiguous; for instance ᵱ may be "par" or "per".

Even though it is not kasher, we encode, for instance : 
<ex>par</ex>agraph so that we know there was an abbreviation an we 
resolve it.

It then would be much easier to revert <ex>par</ex> and <ex>per</ex> to 
ᵱ than it would be to resolve ᵱ as either par or per.


Le 19/07/2017 à 12:30, Lou Burnard a écrit :
> Well yes indeed,  <ex> and <am> really only work under some 
> assumptions which just don't hold true for many non-Western European 
> scripts, and even I am sure in some WE cases. And looking again at the 
> OP, I wonder why it's necessary to mark up these expansions at all. 
> Why not just transcribe what is there, using the appropriate Unicode 
> character if there is one (which there is for 90% of cases) and <g> 
> for the others? Generating a modernized/expanded version seems to be 
> more of a formatting/rendering issue than an editorial one in this 
> case. And transcribing what is actually there surely must be quicker 
> than trying to recode it on the fly.
>  On 19/07/17 10:06, James Cummings wrote:
>> Hi Lou,
>> You are, of course, correct. However, you can't automagically 
>> determine what the abbreviation marker was by a script. (Well, given 
>> a dictionary of abbreviations you might make a reasonable _guess_)  
>> So I was just putting it at the site of the expanded text so that 
>> someone could then edit the <am/> to make it kosher.  I somehow think 
>> it is vaguely better to indicate in the abbreviated form that 'this 
>> is the place where the word is abbreviated' demonstrated by that 
>> being where one expands it. I was just suggesting that with a text 
>> using only <ex> elements in words that one could get most of the way 
>> to a detailed <choice>.  This falls down even more outside a western 
>> european context of course where the abbreviation marker may be 
>> completely separate from the orthographic word for all I know.
>> -James
>> On 18/07/17 20:44, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> 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:
>>>> 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