There are just two sentences and one vague example to explain the new
<substJoin> element at the end of 188.8.131.52 (http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/PH.html#PHSU) The second sentence reads "For example, in the following example from Thomas Moore's Lalla Rookh, the metrical structure of the verse means that the deleted word and its substitution are in different positions, and so a subst element would be invalid because of the intervening text: "
a) this sentence is very confusing. I don't understand what connexion there can be between the metrical structure and the fact that a
<subst> element would be invalid, but the "and so" implies that there is one. Also surely the deleted word and the added one are necessarily in different positions. But mostly this sentence just does not explain why
<subst> cannot be used here.
b) most of the other examples in this section are accompanied by a graphic showing the passage in question. this would be particularly useful in this case, especially since there's no link to the source of the example, as there should be.
If we can't improve on this we should revert the change that introduced this hastily conceived and inadequately described element.