[tei-council] [Fwd: encoding scribal corrections]

[Daniel O'Donnell]

I thought I'd pass this one as it looks to me like it might be a
mistake: if we treat gap as the recommended way of encoding del where
text is illegible, then gap should presumably be allowed in subst.

But since I lost my argument that the whole choice system was not
properly organised, I can never tell if things are mistakes, if I'm
misunderstanding them, or just sour grapes.

-dan


-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Alexey LAVRENTEV <Alexei.Lavrentev at ENS-LSH.FR>
Reply-To: Alexey LAVRENTEV <Alexei.Lavrentev at ENS-LSH.FR>
To: TEI-MS-SIG at listserv.brown.edu
Subject: encoding scribal corrections
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:23:51 +0100

Hello,
 
I am having a problem with encoding a particular kind of scribal
correction :
a piece of unreadable deleted text with an overwritten correction.
 
TEI Guidelines recommend using <gap reason="deleted"/> in case of
unreadable deletions (cf. a note in the description of <del>
http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-del.html),
but <gap> is not allowed within <subst>, which otherwise looks
like the most appropriate tag for grouping deletions and additions.
 
What is the reason for not allowing <gap/> within <subst> ?
 
Best,
 
Alexei
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Department Chair and Associate Professor of English
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Chair, Text Encoding Initiative http://www.tei-c.org/

Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Vox +1 403 329-2377
Fax +1 403 382-7191
Email: daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
WWW: http://people.uleth.ca/~daniel.odonnell/