[tei-council] @TEIform

[Sebastian Rahtz]

James Cummings wrote:

> Having a place in the teiHeader to refer to an ODD...or even embed it 
> (or this that too horribly recursive?) 

sounds expensive...

> seems reasonable.  Perhaps a URI attribute in tagsDecl?  Would such a 
> thing point just to the ODD source or to generated schemas as well?

oh gosh you'll start up Syd's thread again. Mind you, I don't object to 
adding a URI hook
linking to an ODD somewhere in the header.

But let's recall James Clark's belief (strongly supported in some circles)
that an instance may have several schemata against which it may or may not
be valid. There is no one right answer. So it goes against this argument
to associate an instance with just one {XSD,RNG,DTD}.

However, an ODD does some more work. In this case it defines
relationships between used element names and TEI ur-element
names. In some ideal world, we would extract just that info
and put it in the header - and how would we keep it up to date
and accurate, etc? If we use <equiv> in the manner I suggested in Sofia,
we need external data sources to do the translation anyway.

We worry that a document may become separated from its metadata,
or the metadata lost. And? A binary program separated from its source
happens too. Its bad. But you cannot legislate against it.

We have already accepted that the I18N work presupposes the
ability to translate from an instance which has translated names;
this needs an ODD, since @TEIform does not help with attributes.

In the new world where DTDs no  longer reign supreme,
attributes with default values, like @TEIform, are an anachronistic
pain in the neck. They arent there when you might like them, if you
use schema processing, and they pop up when you don't want them
(when an editor shows you a list of attributes).

sebastian