This surely needs addressing in Guidance, but I don't think it's a big deal. My feeling is that editors will in general only need to tag very basic elements in translation (supplied, gap, abbr), and that these will be handled more or less as in the edition. The only difference in InsAph was that line-breaks were rendered as '|' rather than carriage returns. Are there enough other differences that we need to consider a translation Leiden-style? I would have thought not...
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I would say that (a) anything that can appear in a text can appear in a translation, and except in rare cases (none currently) we should expect the XSLT to do the same things with it; (b) in practice far fewer things will be tagged in the translation than in the text. In IRT, for example, we restrict translation markup to: supplied-lost, supplied-subaudible, gap-lost, abbreviation, notes.
I would suggest that an appendix on translations would basically make this point, with a slimmed down list of the most commonly useful markup pages.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Logged In: YES
user_id=597407
Originator: NO
This surely needs addressing in Guidance, but I don't think it's a big deal. My feeling is that editors will in general only need to tag very basic elements in translation (supplied, gap, abbr), and that these will be handled more or less as in the edition. The only difference in InsAph was that line-breaks were rendered as '|' rather than carriage returns. Are there enough other differences that we need to consider a translation Leiden-style? I would have thought not...
I would say that (a) anything that can appear in a text can appear in a translation, and except in rare cases (none currently) we should expect the XSLT to do the same things with it; (b) in practice far fewer things will be tagged in the translation than in the text. In IRT, for example, we restrict translation markup to: supplied-lost, supplied-subaudible, gap-lost, abbreviation, notes.
I would suggest that an appendix on translations would basically make this point, with a slimmed down list of the most commonly useful markup pages.
This is handled here, extensively, since that time. [http://www.stoa.org/epidoc/gl/dev/supp-translation.html]