Dear all, I'm reading the draft of the manuscript description element for the TEI consortium, who will be usefull to describe our charters. Indeed, all elements are available for us and we must understand "manuscript" as "handwritten sources". So, I think we can use <msDescription> for <chDesc>. For more informations, you can see this draft : http://www.tei-c.org/P5/Guidelines/MS.html. For the other questions, I answer between the lines :
<text type="charter"> replaces <document> for the single charter.
I'm very OK, this proposition goes in the TEI's direction.
<chDesc> (for CharterDescription) replaces <regestum> for the metadata.
Cf my proposition.
<idno> replaces <number> for the given identifying number of a single charter.
Yes.
<listBibl type="facsimilia|prints|regesta|studies"> replaces the dedicated elements <facsimilia> <prints> <regesta> <studies>.
Very good. For informations, I gave up the <witness n="Indiqué"> for <listBibl type="Indiqué"> like Georg suggested me and it's perfect. Thanks Georg ;-)
The discussion on the segmentation of the tenor didn't reach a consensus. As a compromise I would like to suggest to keep the elements of the well-established diplomatic terminology (<arenga>, <narratio>, <dispositio> etc.) but do not force them into the strict hierarchy of the <protocoll>, <context> and <eschatocoll>.
This questions are more complicated than I thank in November. Indeed, must we use <div>, <seg> or new elements ? I continue to think this informations must be in attribute. So, i ask me if we should use in the good case <div> or <seg> and take in the attibute the right part. No ?
Did I miss anything?
I don't think. Sincerely Gautier