[tei-council] TEI model classes future directions

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> Classes that behave differently must be named differently. *Must*.
>   
agreed.
>  value of methods=		class looks like    class name
>  ----- -- --------		----- ----- ----    ----- ----
>  [none,default,always]		a | b | c           C
>  sequence			a, b, c             C.seq
>  sequence-optional		a?, b?, c?          C.seq-opt
>  sequence-repeatable		a+, b+, c+          C.seq-rep
>  sequence-repeatable-optional   a*, b*, c*          C.seq-opt-rep
>   
agreed.  the precise naming convention may need some
worrying at. possibly a prefix not a suffix? since we already
use model.X.Y for things
> I think this is fine. I think even better would be to skip the
> methods= attribute, and just generate all 5 classes for every class
> declared
>   
could do, yes.
> is that two different classes would
> behave entirely differently when accessed similarly 
>   
I entirely agree. I did suggest that, and I was wrong.

> I also really have a problem with the order of all the "sequence"
> methods -- the order would be the order in which the <elementSpec>s
> occur in ... in the combined P5 source and customization ODD?
the precise behaviour when a customization comes into
play isn't clear to me yet. I agree, its a serious concern.
>  What if
> I want to add element E to class C in my customization: is it added
> in the spot where E is declared in the P5 source, or where I change
> that declaration to include <memberOf key="C"/>? Either way, it would
> be nice to give me control. I just haven't thought of a reasonable
> way to do that, though.
>   
thats about where I am too. I can't see an elegant
way of controlling order.
>
> I hope this is making sense.
>
>   
yes. and my apologies for implying you were entirely
against the idea!

-- 
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