Print

Print


A bit late to the party. Been trying to send this for the last day...

If you aren't using the <abbr> element to surround the part of the word
that is visible in the document, then surrounding with <expan> is very
useful for demarcating the extent of the abbreviated word. It also serves
as a container for the <am> (abbreviation marker) element.

It's possible to use a script as James has already described to put in the
full encoding for the expan/abbr/ex cluster if words are unambiguous, or to
fill out the tags and supplement ambiguities by hand.

It's easier for encoders to only use the <ex>, and perhaps should be part
of encoding practice, but that shouldn't necessarily determine the
resulting encoding.

 --elli

[Elli Mylonas
 Senior Digital Humanities Librarian
 and
 Center for Digital Scholarship
 University Library
 Brown University
 library.brown.edu/cds]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Sebastiaan Verweij <
[log in to unmask]> 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
>
>