combining types conjecture-supplied and correction-deletion.

[jeffreycwitt]

I found and interesting case of a deletion in the manuscript that seems like a mistake but is the only witness to the text.

Thus I find myself wanting to use both "conjecture-supplied" in the lemma and "correction-deletion" in the reading like so:

<app>
  <lem type="conjecture-supplied"><supplied>non</supplied></lem> 
  <rdg wit="#L" type="correction-deletion">
     <del rend="expunctuated">non</del>
  </rdg>
</app>

Our schema doesn't disallow this, but I want to make sure it is documented. If it is allowed, we are expecting that processors will know how to handle such cases.

[stenskjaer]

It intrigues me a bit why this is not allowed in the Guidelines? Is there any specific conflict, conceptually, between the conjecture and the correction-deletion in a reading?

[jeffreycwitt]

I think it is allowed. (I said above "doesn't disallow").

I only wanted to document as a case of "combined use" that processors should be expected to handle.

Perhaps we could add an appendix of examples to which this case could be added.

At present, I'm not sure what my processors would do when encountering both cases, perhaps it would just pick the first one it encounters.

In any case, I don't see it requiring an changes to the guidelines strictly speaking, but it might be a good case to document to make sure processors are prepared to handle such cases.

[stenskjaer]

Ahh sorry, of course it helps to actually read the message. I think it is a good idea with a small compendium of examples (and maybe also suggestions for how a processor could transform it).