[tei-council] Guidelines confusion over damage/unclear?
lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Thu May 1 13:01:36 EDT 2008
I'd say the language could certainly be clarified. I think the reasoning
is that there might be more than one element within the area of damage.
Suppose, for example, there is a smoke damaged part within which two
stretches can be read (more or less) and a third which can't: you'd
want to mark that
<unclear>the proof of this is</unclear>
<gap extent="4" units="words"/>
I'd sort of assume that the @agent information here was inherited in
this case, but we should probably formalise this (i.e. say so in the
prose, as you suggest)
David Sewell wrote:
> In coming up with an example of <unclear> for the ref page, I noticed
> that the Guidelines and the reference page for <unclear> offer somewhat
> contradictory advice.
> In 11.5.1, "Damage, Illegibility, and Supplied Text"
> where a passage from the Elder Edda is used as an example, this advice
> is given about using <unclear> within <damage>:
> If it is desired to supply more information about the kind of damage, it
> is also possible to nest an <unclear> element within the <damage>
> um aldr d<damage agent="rubbing">
> </damage> yndisniota
> However, <unclear> itself can take @agent, and in the reference section
> @agent is indicated for "Where the difficulty in transcription arises
> from damage, categorizes the cause of the damage, if it can be
> identified", with sample values of "rubbing", "mildew", and "smoke".
> Which suggests that this tagging of the Guidelines example would do
> just as well:
> um aldr d<unclear reason="damage" agent="rubbing">aga</unclear>
> with no <damage> tag needed.
> Is this just a case of "there's more than one way to do it", or should
> the Guidelines language at 11.5.1 be revised?
More information about the tei-council