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.


From: Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 19 July 2017 18:06
To: MLH; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: to <expan> or not to <expan>
<expan> should contain the whole of a word that has been expanded. <expan>Mister</expan> when the source says "Mr."

<ex> should contain the bits of an expansion which are not present in the source text but have been added to it by an editor.

The truly obsessive will also wish to mark (using <am>) the full stop which signals that "Mr." is an abbreviation of course.


Of course, it might be that (this is for Bertrand) you think "Mr." is actually an abbreviation for "Monseigneur", in which case you'd have


Or, if unable to decide, a <choice> containing both, and maybe also an <abbr> holding the original form just for fun. Though in that case, where to put the <am> becomes a bit trickier.

On 19/07/17 17:42, MLH wrote:
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!)