"sil. em." issue in Candrakiraṇa's critical edition

[zakariyaaminullah]

Dear @michaelnmmeyer,

I’m encountering an issue with the <witDetail/> element, which I’m using to indicate the type of emendation in the earlier edition, specifically in this case, EdLC (Lokesh Chandra’s edition).

When I encode , the output appears as shown in the image below:

However, other types such as "norm" and "emn" are displayed correctly when used within <witDetail/>.

I would appreciate your help in identifying and resolving the issue. Thank you in advance.

[michaelnmmeyer]

I do not know what you expect the output to be. Can you clarify?

For the record, the relevant passage is:

<app>
<lem wit="#edlc #msjc">kulit</lem><witDetail wit="#edlc" type="silemn"/>
<rdg wit="#msja #msjb">kulik</rdg>
</app>

[arlogriffiths]

We expect use of <witDetail> to help clarify in display that a given bit of information (here @type="silemn") applies to one and not all of the witnesses marked on the given element (here <lem>). In other words, we'd like display to be

kulit EdLC (sil. em.) J3
instead of
kulit EdLC J3 (sil. em.)

The rule I had in mind is that such content of <witDetail> is always to be displayed immediately after the siglum for the witness in question.

[michaelnmmeyer]

OK. What about the case where this both EdLC and J3 have @type=silemn? I mean, do you read

kulit EdLC J3 (sil. em.)

... as EdLC; J3 (sil. em.) or EdLC (sil. em.); J3 (sil. em.)? Should I use the latter when this concerns several witnesses?

[arlogriffiths]

indeed, as you point out, there are grey areas where ambiguity can arise in our use of "(...)" for remarks on specific witnesses/lemmas/readings in the display of apparatus. in due course, a more significant overhaul may be necessary to try to get rid of such ambiguities. but for now, in the scenario you ask about, I would indeed expect (sil. em.) and other such parenthetic statements to be placed after every siglum to which it applies. that would thus be the case with either one of the following two semantically equivalent encoding scenarios:

1. <app><lem wit="#edlc #msjc" type="silemn">kulit</lem><rdg wit="#msja #msjb">kulik</rdg></app>

2. <app><lem wit="#edlc #msjc">kulit</lem><witDetail wit="#edlc" type="silemn"/><witDetail wit="#msjc" type="silemn"/> <rdg wit="#msja #msjb">kulik</rdg></app>