comment about [Editorial]

[ousia]

I have just spotted in Jowett’s Plato both:

Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie

and

an und fur sich seyn

In German, it is für and this is wrong, not matter what the typesetter or the editor may have thought.

I see that § 1.4.2 requires to mark such a basic spelling mistake (in a foreign language) as [Editorial].

Sorry but I think it is totally different to modernize spelling (which would be an und für sich sein in that case) than correcting spelling mistakes (probably from the typesetter).

My comment is that it makes it harder to report a such a basic error, since it adds the task to check the text in the printed edition.

Results after searching the scanned books from the Internet Archive:

The first error is in the digital transcription, not included in the printed edition.

The second mistake may be from the typesetter, since it is included in the printed edition.

This would require two commits for fixing the same word to the same result: one with [Editorial] and another one without it.

Sorry, but I think it may be worth to rule also these cases.

Many thanks for your help.

[acabal]

Yes, you can fix those as you suggest. Fixing two characters and writing two brief commit messages is not hard, you could have done that and opened a PR in the time it took you to compose this issue :)

[ousia]

No, checking each single passage is the time-consuming task.

I don’t know why I’m not given access to my own repositories.

I will try tomorrow. I would like to use the web interface for commits.

Many thanks for your help.

[ousia]

Closing since [Editorial] is taken literally (so no further discussion).