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

[Martin Holmes]

On 11-12-01 08:27 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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>
>
> ?

Exactly.

Cheers,
Martin


>
> 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
>>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)