This is my take on Ewa's questions in the preceding post:

1. I discovered that in some entries which have different forms the following occurs: we have several pronseg cases, each of which is the same, and associated with each pronseg we have a unique definition. The pronseg's are all phonemic so in the past we did not mark them as type="phonemic" since they did not contrast with type="narrow". Should they be marked as type="phonemic"?

If I understand this correctly, the forms are the same in all cases, but the definitions are different. In this case, I suspect that they should be different entries, shouldn't they? If they're the same entry, then don't they need only one form, and multiple definitions?

Incidentally, in our documentation from last July, it says that we should be using "broad" vs "narrow", rather than "phonemic". Did we change our minds on this? The docs actually show that "broad" is the default, so you wouldn't need to add it. Could you read through the PDF and let me know if what's described there differs from the existing markup you're working on now?

2. We have at least two different ways of dealing with marking up glosses so as to create, eventually, English to Nx lists. First, we still have lots of cases which were marked up in lexware with an asterisk. But we also have cases like the following definition "it is tame or gentle" where it has been marked up with two "gloss" tags. Do we want to have a consistent way of marking up the meanings now, or shall we leave that task until a later date, given that there is already so much work in marking up already?

My automatic conversion code should have converted any * items into gloss tags (* means nothing in the context of XML), but if you had already started work on this file when I added that feature, it wouldn't have been converted. The gloss tags need to be added, though.