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

[Lou Burnard]

So your recommendation would be:

If "xyz" was added, and then deleted : <del><add>xyz</add></del>

If "xyz" was added and then "yz" was deleted : <add>x<del>yz</del></add>

If "xyz" was added, and then "yz" was deleted, and then the whole of xyz 
was deleted: would you do

<del><add>x<del>yz</del></add></del>

?




On 01/12/11 16:10, Brett Barney wrote:
> Though I'm not feeling particularly merry, I'll chime in to say that I'm
> with Martin on this one. The Whitman Archive encoding guidelines that we
> wrote eight or nine years ago explicitly prescribe those two approaches
> (<add> inside <del> to show that the whole contents of an addition were
> subsequently deleted; <del> within <add> when only a part were).
>
> BTW, this exchange seems to have started off-list, as I can't find
> either of the earlier messages. That creates a bit of challenge to
> retracing the conversation, at least when bits have been redacted.
> Probably not good for the integrity of the listserv archive, besides, right?
>
> Brett
>
> Inactive hide details for Martin Holmes ---11/29/2011 10:08:26 AM---On
> 11-11-29 03:35 AM, Lou Burnard wrote: > On 25/11/11 20:4Martin Holmes
> ---11/29/2011 10:08:26 AM---On 11-11-29 03:35 AM, Lou Burnard wrote: >
> On 25/11/11 20:41, Martin Holmes wrote:
>
>
> From:	
> Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
>
> To:	
> Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>
> Cc:	
> TEI Council <tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>
> Date:	
> 11/29/2011 10:08 AM
>
> Subject:	
> Re: [tei-council] Responses to Primary Sources #2 (up to the end of 11.3.5)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> --
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
>