[tei-council] Responses to Primary Sources #2 (up to the end of 11.3.5)

[Martin Holmes]

On 11-11-29 03:35 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> On 25/11/11 20:41, Martin Holmes wrote:

>> -----------------------
>>
>> In this example from Graves:
>>
>> [quote]
>> A little earlier in the same extract, Graves writes ‘for an abridgement’
>> above the line, and then deletes it. This may be encoded similarly:
>> As for 'significant artist.' You quote the O.E.D<add hand="#RG"
>> place="above">
>>     <del>for an abridgement</del>
>> </add>in
>> explanation...
>> [/quote]
>>
>> I believe the encoding might be better if the<del>   enclosed the<add>,
>> rather than the other way round. The writer deleted the addition; he did
>> not add the deletion. Ditto for the following example with the word
>> "Norton". Note: this is exactly what is described further on in the
>> page, with regard to another example: "Note the nesting of an add
>> element within a del to record text first added, then deleted in the
>> source."
>
> Not sure that I agree with you here. The second example uses the @seq
> attribute to clarify what is otherwise ambiguous . Suppose however that
> Graves had added "x y z" and then deleted "y z". Wouldnt you encode that
> as "<add>x<del>y x</del></add>  ?
>
> The bald statement in the text "By convention, however, deletion
> precedes addition" seems to confuse the issue entirely, and I'd quite
> like to remove it. We probably need someone wiser and more experienced
> in these matters to provide us with a bit more discussion.

I'd like to ask the rest of our merry band to look at this, then. There 
are more examples further down in the chapter, and I think we should try 
to make them all consistent. You raise a good point about an addition 
which is partially deleted; in that case, I think your formulation is 
correct (add outside del) because some of the addition persists after 
the deletion. But when the entire addition is deleted, I think it's more 
logical to put add inside del.

I also agree that we should get rid of the "bald statement". I don't 
know whose convention that is, or why it's a convention.

Cheers,
Martin