On 28/09/15 14:15, Hugh Cayless wrote:
I will be integrating the new critical apparatus changes later this morning. Just a few nit picking comments on these:
1. The original reading marked by an <gi>app</gi> element; each reading is given in a <gi>rdg</gi>element; if it is - desired to single out one reading as preferred, it may be tagged <gi>lem</gi>: was chosen after prolonged agitation from TEI users who didn't believe in "lem" as distinct from "rdg". The proposed revision is marked by an <gi>app</gi> element; the preferred (or base) reading is tagged with <gi>lem</gi>; + each reading is given in a <gi>rdg</gi>element: This renegues on our earlier decision by implying that a lem is required. I think this revision should probably just be reverted. 2. "Textual variation may manifest in many ways." I think "manifest" needs an object: insert "itself" before "in many ways". 3. "An omission in on witness may" -> "An omission in one witness may" 4. "are a harder phenomenon" -> "are harder" or "constitute a harder phenomenon" (to avoid plural verb with singular complement) 5. The additional constraints in <ab> etc. remind me of why this whole thing makes me feel uneasy: because we really want to do constraints on *members of the class model.pLike* but the architecture doesn't permit it. I have no solution to propose though.
Does anyone need help getting their work merged into master before Thursday? Please let me know!
I need a reminder of how to do "svn up" :-(
Incidentally, I’ve just pushed a change to the Stylesheets that I think will fix the goofy ODD validation error we’ve been seeing. Didn’t seem to break any tests.
What error? The only change I can see is something to do with namespaces in schematron rules -- is that the one you mean?