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

[Lou Burnard]

OK, in the interest of getting this baby out the door, I have changed 
the examples to use <add> within <del>, and also added a sentence 
pointing out that we now have<change> to do the same thing as @seq, only 
better.


On 01/12/11 17:17, Martin Holmes wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>