Open adunning opened 6 years ago
My first thought was that in my view this mostly belongs in the diplomatic schema. But then, what happens if an editor wants to give this sort of information in a critical context?
We could of course include it in the critical, but it would violate the principle that <add>
and <del>
wrap whole words, not just the changed characters.
I wonder whether we would add an attribute to the <subst>
element rather than the individual sub-elements. This would decrease the granularity with which you can describe the change, but increase the generality.
The problem I have often thought of with the @rend
is that it approaches infinity in the range of possible descriptions that would be necessary. That makes it difficult to schematize.
I am open to discuss any of this. And I definitely see ways of including a solution that could encode such information, and where it would be useful and work wel.
I'd certainly be interested in any other approaches: my aim here is to implement what the TEI and EpiDoc guidelines seem to be assuming while making it possible to render a documentary edition in a readable fashion. There are certainly circumstances in which it's useful to indicate modification within a critical apparatus, since the alternative is adding another siglum for a corrector, and that is both less efficient (at least in TEI) and more error-prone.
(Perhaps I am misunderstanding your second sentence, but I should note for the record that there is nothing saying that <add>
and <del>
must wrap an entire word: the guidelines at http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/PH.html include several examples showing the substitution of individual characters.)
Could the schema provide a value of ‘alteration’, ‘alt’, or something similar to mark a letter that has been modified (e.g. an o changed to a b), sometimes without technically having been erased? A couple of examples:
gladius → gladiis [Technically the letter here has not been added at all, but the
inline
value would presumably make most sense? One could also, I suppose, make a case forinRas
, but the point is that only part of the letter has been erased to change the 'u' into an 'i'.]ualeuimus → ualebimus