| | 80 | The result looks like this: |
| | 81 | |
| | 82 | {{{ |
| | 83 | <gap>ETAS plumbicus. # \2.Pb <ol>A</ol> # 2 # 4071.2 # 68.50 # 31.50 |
| | 84 | cum aquâ.. # \2.Pb <ol>A</ol> # 2 + 6 Aq. # 4750.8 # 58.71 # 26.99 # 14.30 |
| | 85 | triplumbicus.. # \2.Pb # 3 <ol>A</ol> # 2 # 9649.2 # 86.71 # 13.29 |
| | 86 | ... |
| | 87 | stannicus... # \2.S\2.t <ol>A</ol> # 4 # 4435.1 # 42.18 # 57.82 |
| | 88 | ... |
| | 89 | <gap>CIDUM aceticum. # H # 6 C # 4 O # 3 = <ol>A</ol> # 641.12 # C = 47.00 # O = 46.79 # H = 6.21 |
| | 90 | ... |
| | 91 | arsenicicum.. # As +5 O = \5.As # 1440.77 # 65.30 # 34.70 |
| | 92 | # \5.As # 2 # 2881.54 |
| | 93 | }}} |
| | 94 | |
| | 95 | * {{{<gap>}}} makes sense |
| | 96 | * {{{<sc>}}} is missing |
| | 97 | * {{{^2}}} consistently becomes {{{ # 2}}}, which makes no sense and is in fact counter-productive; # is the symbol for another column in the table. The special instructions introduced a new way of marking superscript. Was the rule too complicated? Not really. (Compare this with Greek text: There are initially many mistakes, and only after some time the error rate decreases. Does it mean that special instructions should be used only where they cannot be avoided?) |
| | 98 | * They have ignored the rule that {{{\2.S\2.t}}} should become {{{\4.St}}}. One could argue that it doesn't make sense to make them think in chemical terms, and it can easily be corrected via some post-processing. |
| | 99 | |
