[tei-council] xml-colon-thing

[Syd Bauman]

> By the way, the current SOW=09 says, in aside sort of way: ...

I do not at the moment have an opinion on this one at all, let alone
a strong one. So I'd like to understand the pros and cons on both
sides.

I am sure I understand the current problem: editing a single file of
a multi-file document (like the Guidelines) is a big pain with XML
IDs that point to another file.

I agree with SOW09's point (David Durand's idea, I think, but might
have been someone else's) that if one used a relative URI reference
this would not be a problem.

But I'm a bit confused ... since XML editing software doesn't
typically validate bare name references, wouldn't using just a bare
name avoid most the problems as well as using a relative URI
reference would? E.g. <ptr target="#COXR"/>


> This rather horrifies me, as it implies that the separate
> chapters are always separate documents, which will be presented
> separately.

I don't think it implies separate documents at all, let alone
always. 


> Either the Guidelines are a single document, or they are not.

Seems a little counter-intuitive to me -- why wouldn't the wave /
particle dilemma apply? I think of the Guidelines as a single
document, as I think most people do, but chapter 2 is even produced
as a separate document.


> Whether you can process a chapter by itself for proofing purposes
> is a matter of internal hackery...

I'm not sure what you mean by "internal hackery", but if it isn't
tricks like using a relative URI reference ("./name#here") instead of
a bare name ("#here"), what is it?