Looking at this more closely, it's clear that the suggested value list has been
made by simply merging previously existing (but on different attributes) lists,
with no attempt to rationalise any resulting inconsistency. Apart from this
duplication, there is also some ambiguity. If there's a note on the back of a
recto page, should I use the value "verso", or the value "overleaf"? If there's
a note on the back of a verso page I don't have the choice of saying "recto"...

I think we should re-emphasize that this is not a closed but a suggested list.
However it clearly needs a major overhaul. I'm willing to propose a candidate
replacement, if no-one else does.

Lou


In message <49649773.1010505@kcl.ac.uk> "Ciula, Arianna"
<arianna.ciula@kcl.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> 
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > Arianna Ciula wrote:
> >> may be something like:
> >> "note appears as a marked paragraph in the body of the text or in a 
> >> space left in the witness by an earlier scribe"
> > ok, except that I'd omit the word "note", as I think @place
> > is now used for more than notes.
> 
> I was using 'note' to be consistent with the rest of the values.
> 
> In any case, before compacting it, may be we should wait for others to 
> comment on this. In fact Dot seems to imply she needs to make a 
> distinction between these two senses of 'inline' in her encoding.
> 
> Arianna
> -- 
> Dr Arianna Ciula
> Research Associate
> Centre for Computing in the Humanities
> King's College London
> 2nd Floor
> 26-29 Drury Lane
> London WC2B 5RL (UK)
> Tel: +44 (0)20 78481945
> http://staff.cch.kcl.ac.uk/~aciula/
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council@lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council