=================================================================
  KEY
  
  ***  =  will be done, essential to functionality
  **   =  should probably be done, helpful to functionality
  *    =  should be done if easy, adds marginally to functionality
  ?    =  of dubious utility
  =================================================================

1. Additional tags

N.B. <POS>, <LANG>, and <NOTE> are already used in current MED production.

2. Additional attributes

*** ID attribute on <ENTRYFREE> to allow other texts to link to it.

*   RID or TARGET attribute on <ETYMON> to allow it to link to other dictionaries.
**  LANG attribute on <ETYMON>.

*   RID or TARGET attribute on <WORD> to allow it to link to referenced headword/entry.
**  LANG attribute on <WORD> for non-ME words.

?   TYPE (=head, variant) attribute on <ETYMON> to distinguish between 
    other dictionaries' headwords and variant forms. (Or use the TEI <DISTINCT> element).

    EXP attribute on most elements likely to contain abbreviated text, e.g.:

*** <LANG>        <LANG EXP="Old Slavonic">OSl.</LANG>
**  <ABBR>        <ABBR EXP="superlative">sup.</ABBR>
**  <DIAL>        <LBL>early <DIAL EXP="Kentish">K</DIAL></LBL>
**  <USG>         <USG EXP="numismatics">num.</USG>
*** <ORTH>        <ORTH EXP="arthetik,arthretik">arth(r)etik</ORTH>
*   <PHRASE>      <PHRASE EXP="don askinge,yeven askinge">don (yeven) ~</PHRASE>

**  REND attribute on <TAX> element, as above.
**  REND attribute on <LBL> element, as above.

3. Enlarged use of current tags

***  Non-italicised usage labels tagged as 
     (this is already done, somewhat irregularly, in current MED production)

?    Subsenses or phrasal definitions tagged by nested  tags.
     (this is partly done in current MED prod. with respect to lettered
     subsenses) 


4. Expansions

***
FORMS>
Given the uncertainty of expanding forms in the text itself, consider
the virtues of expansion (without diacritics) as attribute values rather than literal text. Though at the expense of 
adding to the bulk of the text, and at the risk of encountering attribute limitations, this has three notable advantages, viz.


it preserves the compact display of the print MED.
it allows for progressive (layered) expansion of the forms, from purely automatic to wholly manual.
it allows for erroneous expansion of the forms (the original text is still there; the expansion is invisible and results only in an erroneous "hit" from the search).

<FORM><HDORTH>everiwhere</HDORTH> <POS>adv.</POS> Also <ORTH EXP="everiwhore">-iwhore</ORTH>, <ORTH EXP="everaiquare">-aiquare</ORTH>, <ORTH EXP="everilkquar,everilkquare">everilkquar(e</ORTH>.</FORM>



**
SQUIGGLES
(swung dashes)
Probably prefer to expand these as literal text. This can probably
                be done without serious risk of inaccuracy, and makes the
                MED locally (e.g. on a single screen) more intelligible
                without making it significantly less succinct.
Alternatively, convert these to the TEI's <oREF> element with the expanded form preserved as an EXP attribute value. This has the minimal advantage of preserving the "squiggle" but with little else to be said for it.

 


**
PHRASES
Consider expanding at least some phrases and compounds, perh. as
                attribute value, for the same reasons as with forms, above.

<PHRASE EXP="gret in expense, large in expense">gret (large) in <oREF EXP="expense"></PHRASE>, generous.



**
ABBREVIATIONS
Since the expansion is usually unambiguous, most abbreviations (including material tagged as , , , , , and ) can be unambiguously expanded, expansion is probably best handled in an external file rather than in the text or tag. Since some abbreviations may require local expansion, allow all such elements an EXP (expansion) attribute.


[see example under <ABBR> above, section 1.]





5. TEI equivalence/equivalents
<POS>: is roughly equivalent to the TEI element of the same name, differing chiefly to the extent that we have
enlarged the content model of <FORM> to correspond to the MED's "form section." POS can therefore appear within the 
MED's FORM but not within TEI's. POS can similarly appear within the MED's NOTE, ETYM, and DEF, but not the TEI's.
MED:  <FORM><ORTH>blog</ORTH> <POS EXP="noun">n.</POS>1.</FORM>
TEI:  <FORM><ORTH>blog</ORTH></FORM><GRAMGRP><POS>n.</POS><LBL>(1)</LBL></GRAMGRP>
  or: <FORM><ORTH>blog</ORTH><GRAM TYPE="pos">n.</GRAM><LBL>(1)</LBL></FORM> (non-preferred)

Note that the <LBL>(1)</LBL> is better handled by the TEI's "key" attribute (on entries)
The TEI "expand" attribute on <POS> corresponds to the MED's "exp".
<LANG>, <oVAR>, <oREF>, <REF> seem to correspond exactly with the TEI elements of the same names.
<NOTE> (aside from the POS problem) falls within the general TEI tag of the same name.
<TAX> corresponds with any number of possible TEI equivalents, such as <FOREIGN LANG="taxon" REND="par">.
<ETYMON> corresponds roughly with a number of possible TEI equivalents, such as <MENTIONED>, though that lacks the TYPE attribute.
<LBL> does not exceed the bounds of the very general TEI element of the same name.
<PHRASE> corresponds partly with the <FORM>, <RE>, and even <PHR> elements.
<ABBR> corresponds with the general TEI element of the same name.
<HDORTH> corresponds with TEI <FORM TYPE="lemma"><ORTH>
<WORD> falls generally within the broader TEI element <MENTIONED>
<ADD> distorts the intended use of the TEI <ADD> element, but is formally equivalent.
<ME>, a sort of 'exception' to <ADD> is without TEI equivalent (?).