[tei-council] customization in P5

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:

>I am arguing that it is not worth supporting the writing of
>customizations in other languages -- customizations should be written
>in RelaxNG, preferably inside your ODD
>
It depends what you mean by "support".  Do you mean
that we should not make DTD fragments?

>. DTDs are simply not as
>expressive as even ODD-limited RelaxNG, and really should be avoided.
>  
>
they do have one advantage - you can do customization
at the instance level. you might well say that this is
pure evil anyway....

>>The folks in the W3C using it *definitely* want (parameterized)
>>DTDs!
>>    
>>
>
>Why do they want the result DTDs parameterized? Is Felix actually
>writing DTD extensions to P5 Roma-generated DTDs?
>  
>
no. but he may include the ITS DTD, generated from ODDs, inside
another DTD, where he may need the parameterization.

Felix isn't writing TEI at all, remember. He's defining his own language.

>
>Yes, quite right. But what if I want to add an updated version of the
>WWP extensions, which have over 590 declarations? Has anyone tested
>something of that scale?
>
I don't see why it wouldnt work. Why should it be different
than it was before? Mind you, converting that extension
file would be no joke at all!

>rather the question (IIRC) Lou initially raised, which was "should ST
>discuss" these issues. In my current anti-DTD state of mind, I would
>say no, even if it can be done, it should be explained in a separate
>HOWTO, not in the Guidelines themselves. 
>  
>
I don't feel that radical. But equally if the section doesn't
get written, I won't call it a showstopper.


-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk