All right, I've worked through the index and created a first pass at the Glossary of Proper Names. With that heavy lifting done, I've got a few questions as I start going through the rest of the process.
1. The poems often have parts where the original text is missing or illegible. The translation marks these bits with a series of 8 dots. Typogrify wants to convert them to two sequences of an ellipsis and a dot:
- <span>. . . . . . . .</span>
+ <span>… . … .</span>
I don't think this is right. The original matches what's in the physical books, and it makes logical sense to me. Can I leave these as is?
2. Typogrify also wants to remove commas before dashes, in places like the third line of Voluspo 12:
Vigg and Gandalf, Vindalf, Thrain,
Thekk and Thorin, Thror, Vit and Lit,
Nyr and Nyrath,— now have I told—
Regin and Rathsvith— the list aright.
Should I accept typogrify's fix here, or leave the poem as it was in the original? I also see the same thing being fixed in the introduction sections. Should I accept it only for the modern text, and leave the poems alone?
3. Semanticating italics. "Poetic Edda" is obviously a "book". The individual parts (Hovemol, Fafnismol, etc.) are also often italicized, so are they "poems"? The standard indicates in 8.2.11.3 that shorter works that don't stand alone should be quoted, not italicized, but this strikes me as a corner case, and italicizing them as poem names is defensible.
4. In the endnotes, a word being defined/glossed is italicized to differentiate it from the rest of the text. How should these be marked? Nothing in the se vocab seems to quite fit.
--Galen