Thank you Lou for this clear explanation.
I am still missing a couple of things though (sorry):
-is it recommended that <ex> should always be nested inside <expan>? (If so, this might be stated more explicitly in the Guidelines?)
-if it is optional to nest <ex> inside <expan>, what are the specific benefits one might realise from `<expan>ev<ex>er</ex>y</expan>` as opposed to `ev<ex>er</ex>y`?
I suppose the answer will depend on the project to some extent, but say for argument that it is a scholarly edition where it is sufficient to note the presence of an abbreviation that has been expanded, not the form of the original abbreviation.
Could anyone explain the rationale for combining <ex> and <expan> in this way? (for someone not as familiar with the transcription module as he probably should be!)