FOR AFTER CORRESPONDENCE LAUNCH: In early 2023 (after the correspondence launch) we should have a discussion about the display for the classCodes (those three-letter "Nature of Source Text" codes).
At the moment they are encoded in each file in their three-letter, abbreviated form (in profileDesc/textClass/classCode), which are pulled into the bottom metadata box on each HTML page. See the bottom here ("TCU"): https://cdrhdev1.unl.edu/chesnutt/item/ccda.corr00227. We then have a table explaining what each of the possible codes means.
We could discuss doing a search-and-replace in the TEI files and just explicitly stating the full description ("typed copy unsigned", etc.). Or we could explore some sort of hover option (like our current handling of <sic>/<corr>).
However, one thing to think about: it's possible that, in a way, seeing the list of other possible codes (down in that bottom metadata box) lets people understand why we're making these distinctions (that is, it makes clear that there are quite a few other forms in which these texts can exist and thus why we're telling them which form this particular letter is in). So it's possible there's an argument for keeping that full list there...?
In any case, something to talk about with the full editorial group at some point. For now, the directors said they're fine with the current display.
FOR AFTER CORRESPONDENCE LAUNCH: In early 2023 (after the correspondence launch) we should have a discussion about the display for the classCodes (those three-letter "Nature of Source Text" codes).
At the moment they are encoded in each file in their three-letter, abbreviated form (in profileDesc/textClass/classCode), which are pulled into the bottom metadata box on each HTML page. See the bottom here ("TCU"): https://cdrhdev1.unl.edu/chesnutt/item/ccda.corr00227. We then have a table explaining what each of the possible codes means.
We could discuss doing a search-and-replace in the TEI files and just explicitly stating the full description ("typed copy unsigned", etc.). Or we could explore some sort of hover option (like our current handling of
<sic>/<corr>).However, one thing to think about: it's possible that, in a way, seeing the list of other possible codes (down in that bottom metadata box) lets people understand why we're making these distinctions (that is, it makes clear that there are quite a few other forms in which these texts can exist and thus why we're telling them which form this particular letter is in). So it's possible there's an argument for keeping that full list there...?
In any case, something to talk about with the full editorial group at some point. For now, the directors said they're fine with the current display.