<del rend=strike> containing <space>

[wehooper]

At line 483 of ALCH00109.xml, Portsmouth 3973, "Experiments," we have a \<del> containing a <space dim="horizontal" extent="25">. We use this strategy to capture lines or rules that Newton draws.

Search for "brittle like a cindre" in Portsmouth 3973 in a browser. The rule should fall at the end of that line. That's midway down f.1v.

[wehooper]

There is an instance of \<del rend="overdash"> near the top of ALCH00081.xml, Dibner 1031 B, "Of Natures obvious laws . . . ," which produces a dashed overline.

See ALCH00081.xml line 406.

In browsers, P4: http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/mss/dipl/ALCH00081/ search "may be" from top. P5: http://carbon.dlib.indiana.edu:8220/text/ALCH00081/diplomatic#?c=&m=&s=&cv=0&xywh=-1%2C0%2C1%2C1

[wehooper]

There's another case in 1031 B where "overdash" is used inside \<add>. Search for 'indurated'. We used the overdash when Newton struck a word in a sentence, and then a later time drew a line through the whole sentence. We decided to use marks above x-height since overstrikes-on-overstrikes look like overstrikes (occurring half-x-height). The overstriking of the word 'indurated' is visible because it appears in the \<add>. Can you see another solution to this general problem apart from using an overdash versus overstrike? More tools may be available now.

[wehooper]

I just found a \<del rend="none"> in 1031 B. Search for 'standing water'. That phrase occurs in an \<add> and in the page image you can see Newton has written a lower-case 'w' but it's not struck out. I recall now that we used rend="none" to signal a "silent edit." The 'w' is left unstruck in the diplomatic so it appears there, and then we ignore the del content in the normalized version.

I wrote this up yesterday and only remembered what it was for hours later.

[Conal-Tuohy]

@wehooper can you clarify these last two points, please? With links? They sound unrelated to the issue, to me.

[Conal-Tuohy]

Re-reading the comment about del[@rend='none'] and I find that it makes more sense to me now. Though it's not really a "deletion" is it, if it's left unmarked? I would have thought it should be a <surplus>. I'd suggest fixing it by transforming the P4 del[@rend='none'] into a P5 surplus.

del indicates a deletion present in the source being transcribed, which states the author's or a later scribe's intent to cancel or remove text. surplus indicates material present in the source being transcribed which should have been so deleted, but which is not in fact. https://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-del.html

[wehooper]

Hey, thanks for the information about \<surplus>. I'd say you're right by that reading. I will definitely pass this on the group.

[wehooper]

We discussed the use of \<surplus> instead of \<del rend="none">, and agree that using surplus is more appropriate. The guidelines suggest surplus should be used for unnecessary repetitions, like "the the," and we have been using sic for those cases, and there are many of those, and they may be difficult to distinguish among all the sic's by machine.

For that reason, we want to restrict the use of the surplus element to del with rend="none", but we agree with making that change. Can it be done programmatically?

[Conal-Tuohy]

@wehooper I'm still not sure I got the gist of this comment:

There's another case in 1031 B where "overdash" is used inside . Search for 'indurated'. We used the overdash when Newton struck a word in a sentence, and then a later time drew a line through the whole sentence. We decided to use marks above x-height since overstrikes-on-overstrikes look like overstrikes (occurring half-x-height). The overstriking of the word 'indurated' is visible because it appears in the . Can you see another solution to this general problem apart from using an overdash versus overstrike? More tools may be available now.

.. but I have it looking like it does in the legacy site. Is that enough?

[Conal-Tuohy]

I think this issue is all done. @wehooper can you confirm, and close it if so?

[wehooper]

The overdashes are fine. This is done, thanks!