Use of <exp>c.</exp>
THU: In the tcn for 146r, in the second marginal note, near the end it said "Aprés use<lb/> de <tl>sayes de <al>porceau,</al></tl>,<lb/> d’un bout de <tl><m>fil de<lb/> fer</m></tl> & <exp>c.</exp>” We have removed the following tag <exp>c.</exp> after the ampersand. It is not in the manuscript nor the tc.
MHS: Keep <exp>c.</exp>. That is how all &s standing for "etcetera" have been transcribed. But I forget whether it applies to tc and tcn or just tcn, please check instructions for transcription.
From Markup protocol: exp tags should be used in both tc and tcn. When abbreviation mark is missing in ms, use <exp> element within <corr> tags, both in tc and tcn i.e. DECISION NEEDED here: do we take & to be an abbreviation for “etc.” as well as “and” – i.e. expand as follows: & <exp>c.</exp> – OR do we only allow & to stand for “et” and the c becomes an editorial addition, i.e.: & <corr><exp>c.</exp></corr>
phs: most recent protocol: The use of & to mean “etc” rather than “et” (determined by context) will henceforth be left as is (just &) in the tc, and in tcn &<sup>c</sup>. Previously it was &[c]. In tl, it will be written &c [Previously, it was &[c]
@ps2270 Last point in last comment above: in the instructions for the tcn, the c after the ampersand is superscript – I imagine this is an accident of html rendering of github comments, and that it should read "&<sup>c</sup>". Can you confirm please?