Dear Dominik,

I believe that we ought to include also cases in which the scribe omitted a series of akSaras because they were also missing in the antigraph. I've encountered several times the type of notation that Peter pointed out and I've always supposed that these is the case. I'm afraid I can't recall on the top of my head in which manuscripts in the CUL these mAtrA symbols occur. I 

Also, I'm not a big fan of replicating in the transcription the symbols found in manuscripts as is done with the asterisks in the example you mention. Instead I prefer to indicate the number of akSaras missing. Indeed we used the element <gap> with further attributes to indicate such cases precisely because there is no other element to do it. I'm not very fond anymore of the way we graphically rendered in the output the missing akSaras, but that's because we decided to follow the Leiden conventions as EpiDoc suggests. I'm seriously rethinking our choice and leaning more towards adopting the conventions used in the SHT volumes of the VOHD, but I'm also exploring the DHARMA project solutions and discussing the topic with the TST people.

Best wishes,

Camillo

Best wishes,

Camillo

---