Hello, while I have no experience with critical editions in TEI, I can't resist chiming in. My first thought was that witnesses should be defined separately for P, Pac and Ppc. This may be a bit cumbersome, but it gets what you want without hacking TEI, and is methodologically simple. I've had a look at the Digital Latin Library linked by Andrew, and it seems that this is one of the two methods they propose (https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-criticus-correction-as-metadata), while their other method (in the section to which Andrew links, https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-criticus-correction-specs) involves the use of the TEI element <witDetail> (https://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/TC.html#TCAPLW), which seems to be the proper TEI-sanctioned method for adding anything about a particular witness at a particular spot, including but not limited to "ac" and "pc".

Having thought a bit about this, I think your encoding use this latter method. According to TEI, witDetail is " a specialized note, which can be linked to both a reading and to one or more of the witnesses for that reading " and which " refers to the closest preceding lem or rdg. " Thus, you might use

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P”>vajayaḥ</rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

--- assuming that a siglum by default means the PC reading, and only the AC reading needs to be indicated separately, to make your encoding simpler;

or,

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P”>vajayaḥ</rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

-- assuming that both the PC and the AC readings need to be tagged explicitly.

All best,

Dan

On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 16:38, Andrew Ollett <andrew.ollett@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Arlo,

I have opted for solution #2 (marking corrections with @type, although in those cases I mark both the a.c. and p.c. reading with type):
e.g.
<app>
<lem wit="#J" type="pc">मेत्ता</lem>
<rdg wit="#J" type="ac">मत्ता</rdg>
<rdg source="#N #Bh">मित्ता</rdg>
</app>
rendered (in XeLaTeX with reledmac):

and for the opposite situation:
<app>
<lem wit="#J" type="ac">णो</lem>
<rdg wit="#J" type="pc" source="#N #Bh">णे</rdg>
</app>
rendered:

The only problem with this is that the @type attribute applies to the entire rdg/lem element, which means that if there are other attributes indicating other manuscripts or sources (as the second example shows), nothing explicitly links "a.c." or "p.c." to the manuscript witness. In my setup I have a convention whereby these @type attributes are interpreted as "going with" with @wit attribute, not with the @source attribute, but in a situation where you have multiple witnesses, you might need to refine this.

I note that the Digital Latin Library has (independently) adopted a similar approach: https://digitallatin.github.io/guidelines/LDLT-Guidelines.html#apparatus-criticus-correction-specs

Another, probably better, option is to use <rdgGrp> for all of the readings of a particular witness, although this makes rendering/processing a little bit more difficult.

Andrew

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:16 AM Arlo Griffiths <arlo.griffiths@efeo.net> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

Say we have declared three witnesses P Q and R and we are facing a scenario whereby the accepted reading is in one case the result of scribal correction in the witness.

Say that the display I desire is like this:

vijayaḥ Ppc Q ◇ vajayaḥ Pac vajayo R

How do I get there? I am surprised to find no guidance in the TEI guidelines.

I have imagined the following two encoding approaches. What do you think?

APPROACH 1

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P”><sic>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

and its counterpart if it is actually the ac reading that is accepted:

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P”><corr>vajayaḥ</corr></rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

APPROACH 2

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P” type=”ac”>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

and its counterpart if it is actually the ac reading that is accepted:

<app>

<lem wit=”#P #Q”>vijayaḥ</lem>

<rdg wit=”#P” type=”pc”>vajayaḥ</sic></rdg>

<rdg wit=”#R”>vajayo</rdg>

</app>

Thanks and best wishes,

Arlo

_______________________________________________
Indic-texts mailing list
Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org
http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts

_______________________________________________
Indic-texts mailing list
Indic-texts@lists.tei-c.org
http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/indic-texts