obsolete or odd markup in files with textparts

[emylonas]

caes0418: The diplomatic transcription has the type "obverse" for all the fragments. Would "fragment" be clearer? Alternatively, the edited transcription uses <app>. The commentary refers to fragments 11a and 11c. Could we use those as values for @subtype?

caes0501: monogram - do we do them as <choice> or <expan>? or is the <choice> correct?

caes0502 - has a text part, but only one. Should it even be there? Same monogram question as above.

More monograms: caes0503, caes0504 (this indicates that the text is on the reverse. But no text on obverse. Not sure it's a textpart, but not deal breaker, caes0507, caes0510 (1 textpart again), caes0511, caes0512, caes0513

caes0516, caes0517 - only one textpart

[zeichman]

One problem with caes0418 is that <supplied> tags are not presently allowed within <unclear> tags. This does not account for the <choice><unclear>a<supplied>bcd</supplied></unclear><unclear>a<supplied>lphabet</supplied></unclear></choice> situation. I think you're right about tagging it as fragments, though.

Regarding monograms - the <figure> tag is allowed in <expan> - I'm also not sure whether the monogram would be within <am> or <abbr>. I feel like it should be the former (cf. L for ἔτους).

I have removed the textpart for caes0516 and caes0517, as it doesn't really serve a purpose; that information makes more sense in the commentary, in these cases.