Going back to this, not sure exactly what is required -
The index page has a link to Previous Editor which could be the page @gabrielbodard is refering to. But this isn't really about an editorial correction of a previous editor - it's about a reading a previous editor made which can no longer be read.
I can't find a page that refers to an editorial correction of a previous edtior, which might be missing from the index. Is the goal to create a new page demonstrating the markup for this case?
I seem to remember that we wanted to insert a reference to a page in the index (the former case) and not the latter.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Trying to reconstruct a conversation that we had a year ago: As @ellimylonas points out, the Previous Editor page is not about editorial correction, so doesn't help here.
At the moment, correction of a previous editor is only mentioned in two places in the guidelines: External Apparatus and Inline Apparatus —and only really illustrated by example there rather than discussed in detail. I think what we were asking for was a new page in the Transcription section of the Guidelines (i.e. a file named trans-*.xml) which explains how to mark up -- in the transcribed text -- a disagreement with an earlier editor/edition regardless of whether this is going to be transformed in an internal apparatus or via any other means. A page to explain markup, for people coming to the Guidelines from that direction.
(This should also be true of all the other types of markup described under supp-app-external, but I suspect most of the others are covered already.)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I don't think these are examples of inline correction of previous editor though—IOSPE doesn't tag that inline, but in an external apparatus. As far as I can see, these inscriptions all include examples of text seen by a previous editor, which may be what you were thinking of? (But isn't what this ticket is about.)
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Comments: The content of@resp should be a URL. @resp should be @source. There really should be a @source on the <rdg> too—what this means in DDbDP dialect is "The publication for which this edition is named had the reading in <rdg> and it has been updated here with the reading from the Berichtigungsliste (BL), which is what's in the <lem>".
Last edit: Hugh A. Cayless 2020-06-16
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I guess my question here is should this be a subsection of Alternative Readings, or a new page? I'm starting to be inclined the the former… although the granular approach to the guidelines has tended to argue against that…
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Added Hugh's example to a new page trans-alt-inline-editorial.xml (hopefully to appear on dev site soon, in time for checking before release 9.4). More examples wouldn't hurt.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Going back to this, not sure exactly what is required -
The index page has a link to Previous Editor which could be the page @gabrielbodard is refering to. But this isn't really about an editorial correction of a previous editor - it's about a reading a previous editor made which can no longer be read.
I can't find a page that refers to an editorial correction of a previous edtior, which might be missing from the index. Is the goal to create a new page demonstrating the markup for this case?
I seem to remember that we wanted to insert a reference to a page in the index (the former case) and not the latter.
Trying to reconstruct a conversation that we had a year ago: As @ellimylonas points out, the Previous Editor page is not about editorial correction, so doesn't help here.
At the moment, correction of a previous editor is only mentioned in two places in the guidelines: External Apparatus and Inline Apparatus —and only really illustrated by example there rather than discussed in detail. I think what we were asking for was a new page in the Transcription section of the Guidelines (i.e. a file named
trans-*.xml
) which explains how to mark up -- in the transcribed text -- a disagreement with an earlier editor/edition regardless of whether this is going to be transformed in an internal apparatus or via any other means. A page to explain markup, for people coming to the Guidelines from that direction.(This should also be true of all the other types of markup described under
supp-app-external
, but I suspect most of the others are covered already.)@ellimylonas, here are some examples from IOSPE vol 3:
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.7.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.7.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.141.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.145.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.161.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.252.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.346.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.45.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.597.html
http://iospe.kcl.ac.uk/3.62.html
I don't think these are examples of inline correction of previous editor though—IOSPE doesn't tag that inline, but in an external apparatus. As far as I can see, these inscriptions all include examples of text seen by a previous editor, which may be what you were thinking of? (But isn't what this ticket is about.)
Bumped -> Future.
@hcayless looks for example in Duke Databank. @ellimylonas does too.
Here is a randomly chosen example from papyri.info:
Comments: The content of
@resp
should be a URL.@resp
should be@source
. There really should be a@source
on the<rdg>
too—what this means in DDbDP dialect is "The publication for which this edition is named had the reading in<rdg>
and it has been updated here with the reading from the Berichtigungsliste (BL), which is what's in the<lem>
".Last edit: Hugh A. Cayless 2020-06-16
EM will take this on for 9.2
I guess my question here is should this be a subsection of Alternative Readings, or a new page? I'm starting to be inclined the the former… although the granular approach to the guidelines has tended to argue against that…
Added Hugh's example to a new page trans-alt-inline-editorial.xml (hopefully to appear on dev site soon, in time for checking before release 9.4). More examples wouldn't hurt.