Emphasize ge:rewrite/@hand over preceding handShift/@new?

[gerritbruening]

Right now, all retraced passages are rendered in double script.

Test case:

• http://dev.faustedition.net/documentViewer?faustUri=faust://xml/document/test/test.xml&page=19&view=facsimile_document.

The styling of the double script is based on the preceding /handShift/@new rather than on ge:rewrite/@hand. In the following example (1) a passage is retraced that is originally written by Goethe in pencil. Accordingly, the double script is rendered in serif typeface and in grey:

Example 1 (from 2 H, p 61)

The manuscript inscription, however, which corresponds to ge:rewrite/@hand (Goethe, ink) is more prominent (as is mostly the case, especially when it is written ink) than the retraced inscription which corresponds to /handShift/@new (Goethe, blurred pencil). Thus, it may be desired to render these passages according to ge:rewrite/@hand (serif font, black for Goethe, ink).

However, the opposite case that the retraced inscription is more prominent than the retrancing inscription is also quite common. In the following example 2 the lower loop of the last letter h in "köstlich" is retraced, but the h is more prominent than the fine correction:

Example 2 (from 2 H, p. 11)

Now, if "Vom Leibe mir" etc. (example 1) is rendered as written in ink, the "h" (example 2) will be rendered as written in pencil correspondingly which would be confusing.

[gerritbruening]

Probably it is best to leave this as it is and fix #24 instead.

[wissenbach]

I'm a bit confused, can you please elaborate some and make clearer what
A. the situation in the manuscript is
B. the way it is rendered now
C. the way it should be rendered as opposed to B

The letter h is retraced, but is more prominent than the fine correction.

Is this referring to the second example/image (don't see letter h in the first one except in 'Weibsgeschlecht')

The inscription, however, which corresponds to ge:rewrite/@hand is mostly more prominent (especially when it is written ink) than the retraced inscription /handShift/@new (often in blurred pencil).

Doesn't ge:rewrite encode the retraced inscription?

[gerritbruening]

@wissenbach , thanks for hinting me on some errors in the description. I have edited it so that it may be less confusing.

After all I think that we should keep the current rendering, based on the preceding /handShift/@new.

[wissenbach]

@gerritbruening , thanks for the clarification. Ideally, the retracing/rewriting inscription in the transcript should be covering the original inscription. So for ink rewriting pencil:

and for pencil rewriting ink:

Barring that, the second best option would be your original suggestion, to have the rewrite hand and material determine the styling of both inscriptions (give preference to the ge:rewrite/@hand over /handShift/@new) in all cases. That way, it's brought to the attention of the reader that something is happening in the manuscript.

[gerritbruening]

Sure, this would be ideal! Would it even be possible to combine serif and non-serif font for cases where autograph inscription is retraced by someone else or where scribal inscription is retraced by Goethe? I presume this would be complicated.