Indeed, is the missing text an omission--which implies a failure to
include, deliberate or otherwise--or is it just not there for reasons
not understood fully? Why not just a <note> within the <app>/<lem>
indicating the absence in this witness of text present in the others?
On 2/9/11 4:26 PM, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
Hmmm... Well, but wouldn't it be quite a step to label a variant
reading of 'omission' type as a <delSpan/>? According to the
guidelines, a <delspan/>: "marks the beginning of a longer sequence of
text deleted, marked as deleted, or otherwise signaled as superfluous
or spurious by an author, scribe, annotator, or corrector" (11.3.4).
It's not the case here, no deletion, just an omission.
Besides, I need to attach the variant reading to a witness.
Le 09/02/2011 22:13, Lou Burnard a écrit :
<delSpan> is provided for this purpose.
On 09/02/11 20:07, Marjorie Burghart wrote:
I'm encoding a 19th c. edition of a medieval text, and one of the
witness has omissions of several paragraphs. Of course, the TEI schema
won't let me put<p> elements inside an<app>/<lem> element...
What would the best practice be to encode this, taking into account
- I use the parallel segmentation method
- It is important to me to keep a methodical link between the encoded
apparatus and the notes noumbers in the original edition (currently,
@n of each<app> tag bears the number of the footnote in the original