Re: Simple alternation
"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.tei.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Paul Schaffner <[email protected]> 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> Er, why tag it as unclear? It looks perfectly legible to me in the image. Like Magdalena Turska, I think this looks like app and rdg. Both readings are from the same witness, but that’s not unknown. If you don’t want to use that, by all means use seg around the two words. > > 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? The documentation for ‘choice’ says Because the children of a choice element all represent alternative ways of encoding the same sequence, it is natural to think of them as mutually exclusive. However, there may be cases where a full representation of a text requires the alternative encodings to be considered as parallel. It would be a more obvious choice if the Guidelines specified one interpretation as a default and provided an attribute for overriding that interpretation. But I read the paragraph quoted as saying that you as an encoder are at liberty to take either interpretation; I’d put a remark in the header to inform later readers of the document. ******************************************** C. M. Sperberg-McQueen Black Mesa Technologies LLC [email protected] http://www.blackmesatech.com ********************************************