Re: Simple alternation

By definition all the children of <choice> are mutually exclusive, so 
you don't need anything like the second proposal.

The pedant in me says that your first solution is slightly misleading in 
that it suggests there are two possible ways of encoding, both of them 
unclear. But that is not the case: there are two ways of encoding, and 
they are both equally clear -- it's either a W or an M: no possibility 
of it being a Z or a hippopotamus. So I would say there's only one thing 
that's unclear and tag it like this

<unclear>
<choice>
<seg>m</seg>
<seg>w</seg>
</choice>
euyn
</unclear>

Or, if this sort of thing happens more than once, I might box clever and 
treat that "w or m" thing as a special glyph :

<unclear>
<g ref="#wOrm"/>
euyn
</unclear>

Of course that means I have to define the pesky w or m thing somewhere, 
and make up my mind how to represent it by default in my output.

p.s. I don't buy Magdalena's suggestion of using <app> for this: there's 
only one witness here.

On 18/10/16 16:02,
Paul Schaffner wrote:
> Given this presentation in an edition:
>
> http://www.umich.edu/~pfs/mec/queries/meuynweuyn.jpg
>
> (which nicely and succinctly says, 'this word is either "meuyn"
> or "weuyn" but I can't tell which), what is the simplest TEI
> way to capture this meaning? (not the appearance, just the meaning.)
>
> Does this suffice?
>
> <choice>
>     <unclear>meuyn</unclear>
>     <unclear>weuyn</unclear>
> </choice>
>
> Or is something like this required?
>
> <choice>
>    <unclear exclude="#weuyn" xml:id="meuyn">meuyn</unclear>
>    <unclear exclude="#meuyn" xml:id="weuyn">weuyn</unclear>
> </choice>
>
> Or is there another, better, way altogether?
>
> pfs
>