Closed Jean-Baptiste-Camps closed 2 years ago
Very interesting textual tradition!
About the test fail: the TEI transformation assumes that there must a witSigla, but here there are some manuscripts with information and no sigla in the metadata.txt. Can we have a sigla for them? Or is the assumption in the test wrong and there might be manuscritps listed without sigla? @Jean-Baptiste-Camps
Forcing them seems like a good practice, because we need them for ideas. The only problem here is that there are two competing systems, old and new, with some overlap (like 'new C' is a new manuscript, but not the same ms. as 'old C')… It would have been easier if Thomas hadn't changed the sigla. Is it a problem if we have sigla like [A]
or A*
(or A (Thomas)
) ? I seem to remember it is.
The TEI uses the value of this field for the xml:id of the witness element. For example, siglum "A" would be:
<witness xml:id="w_A">
Any special characters are not allowed. Right now the transformation replaces whitespace by _ and single quotation mark ' by prime Would single quotation mark work in this case?
It also deals with superscript and subscript: A¹ or A₁ are converted to A1.
And I could add other custom rules if that helps
Another posibility would be to just include the witness information for the ones that actually appear in each stemma.
Every change requested is made, could be merged I think.
A bunch of stemmata for (part of) the complicated Renaut de Montauban tradition.