[tei-council] [Fwd: Re: Suppressed text: summary of position (FR 2242434)]

[Elena Pierazzo]

<superplus> is fine by me, but, even if Gabby doesn't like it as it 
sound as a processing instruction, I would rather prefer <expunge>: it 
is very well established editorial term (Leiden conventions use them and 
just about all textual scholarship handbooks) and all editors will 
intuitively understand what the element is for.

<add>, <del>, <expan> all sound very procedural to me, but nobody 
complains about them as they are clear and established.

Elena


Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2009, at 18:04, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>
>   
>> Not bad. Are you suggesting that because it's shorter than
>> <superfluous>, primarily?
>>     
>
> it's sort of less emotional too
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
> Sólo le pido a Dios
> que el futuro no me sea indiferente
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>   

-- 
Dr Elena Pierazzo
Research Associate
Centre for Computing in the Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Phone: 0207-848-1949
Fax: 0207-848-2980
elena.pierazzo at kcl.ac.uk
www.kcl.ac.uk