[tei-council] @TEIform

[John A. Walsh]

Hi all,

I'm in agreement with James.  I'd like to hear a bit more about the  
"reference-back-to-ODD-source method" before agreeing to drop  
TEIform.  For something like my Comic Book Markup Language, a TEI  
extension set that is more of a radical departure from vanilla TEI  
than the norm, the TEIform element can be useful for tracing one's  
way back to the original TEI elements.

John
--
| John A. Walsh
| Associate Director for Projects and Services, Digital Library Program
| Associate Librarian, University Libraries
| Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of English
| Indiana University, 1320 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405
| Voice:812-855-8758 Fax:812-856-2062 <mailto:jawalsh at indiana.edu>



On Nov 13, 2005, at 10:03 AM, James Cummings wrote:

>> Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>:
>>> We now know how to do this better by reference back to the ODD  
>>> source,
>>> which also covers attribute names.
>>> Hands up all those who would be willing to quietly drop this  
>>> dinosaur
>>> artefact?
>
>
> First, let me say that my gut instinct is to drop it.  Second, by  
> way of playing Devil's Advocate, let me ask why it was there in the  
> first place?
>
> My assumption has always been that in document instances which  
> conformed to an extended DTD where TEI elements had been renamed, a  
> processed version of the document might exist out of context from  
> its DTD.  (Since it is the processing of the document in  
> conjunction with the DTD which provides the attribute.)  So once a  
> document instance is moved somewhere else from it's DTD, that I  
> have a <chapter> element which is really just a type of <div>  
> becomes problematised because I have not documented that it is just  
> a <div type="chapter">.  However, if I have a @TEIform, then the  
> processed/expanded document, even in absence of its DTD will have  
> @TEIform="div", thus providing some perhaps crucial information to  
> someone happening upon the document years later.
>
> What I'm wondering about the reference-back-to-ODD-source method is  
> that it depends upon the existence of another file (much like, you  
> can argue, the unprocessed file does to its DTD).  I'm more than  
> happy to drop @TEIform, because it has never been any actual use to  
> me, however, I am wary about just zapping it without being sure  
> that we're providing as reliable a mechanism since Lou and others  
> must surely have thought it a good idea at some point.  Well, that  
> is the best I can do as a Devil's advocate I think.
>
> So explain to me again how the reference back to the ODD source  
> works?  I'm of course in favour of that as a mechanism since it  
> also covers attribute names.
>
> -James
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council