VMs: Re: Numbered transcription

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi GC,

> I have to admit after working with the concept for awhile, that
> for proofing, numbered words does has some use, especially in
> clarity.  For instance, may I propose a shorthand?  Something like
>
> 2r.8.8 <ee>=<e,e>   or
> 2r.8.8 {C}={c,c}.
>
> This would be short for "At Folio 2r, line 8, word 8, you have EVA
> <ee> written as one glyph (also written as VGBT {C} ), when I
> think this should be EVA <e,e> as two glyphs, (which can also be
> written as VGBT {c,c}.)
>
> Either proofing language works as long as they're identified with
> <> for EVA and {} for VGBT, although I expect we'll probably be
> using EVA for most of the discussion.  This might be a good way of
> submitting long lists of proofing corrections and an easy way to
> maintain them in a list for comparison?

If you make the web-page more "live" (ie, make the word index into a 
hyper-link to an HTML form), all this becomes rather secondary (as the 
form's submit-button JavaScript can trivially handle all the proofing 
formatting you're describing). I'll mock up an example of this to show what 
I mean.

Still, having a unique page/line/word index would almost certainly be 
useful, if only for identifying interesting words in the document that we 
might perhaps want to debate on-list. :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....