Print

Print


On 18/08/18 18:16, Hugh Cayless wrote:
> Dear David,
> 
> I would say it ought to say *should* (and I may just go ahead and fix it
> unless there are objections).

I think that would be right, and in accordance with practice.

> On Aug 18, 2018, at 07:03, Birnbaum, David J <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> The Guidelines, at
>> http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html#index-body.1_div.12_div.4,
>> say that:
>>
>> An omission in one witness may be encoded using an empty rdg,

The implication would seem to be that omitting the <rdg> for a witness
means that the witness is identical to the lemmatic form, so using an
empty <rdg/> indicates two things: a) this witness omits the material;
and b) no, I have not forgotten to include a rdg for this witness just
because the witness omits the material.

///Peter