[tei-council] Responses to Primary Sources #2 (up to the end of 11.3.5)
mholmes at uvic.ca
Thu Dec 1 12:17:46 EST 2011
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
> 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?
>> 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:
>> Martin Holmes<mholmes at uvic.ca>
>> Lou Burnard<lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
>> TEI Council<tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>> 11/29/2011 10:08 AM
>> 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.
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
More information about the tei-council