[tei-council] 4 questions about TD

[Laurent Romary]

Le 2 juin 06 à 15:12, Lou Burnard a écrit :

> In the course of reviewing the P5 chapter on tag docs (TD) to  
> document the new
> class usage, I hit my head on the following 4 uncertainties.  
> Comments welcomed:
>
> 1. Are all classes declared upfront? In other words, can a module
>    declare a new class without there being at least a null definition
>    for it in the infrastructure module? If this is the case (as I
>    sincerely hope) references throughout the text of TD to modules
>    as things which can define "elements, attributes, classes, and  
> macros" need
>    attention.

I would like classes to define their own classes. At least, it would  
make the management of each module easier.

>
> 2. Are the things defined by the element currently called  "macroSpec"
>    to be referred to in the text as "patterns" or as "macros"? At
>    present  they appear to be referred to throughout TD as
>    "patterns". If this is the case then the spec element should be  
> renamed to
>    "patternSpec". If it is not, then the references should be changed
>    (again). (In ST, however, we consistently talk about them as
>    "macros", probably because we also talk about "patterns" in
>    the RelaxNG sense)

I like the word pattern and I would vote for patterSpec. Still, I  
dislike in general  the notion of Macro in ODD, which should  
progressively be replaced by a more ellaborate use of classes (cf.  
our discussion in Kyoto on various content models associated to  
them...).

>
> 3. Aside from the naming convention, there are two ways in which an
>    attribute class distinguishes itself from a model class. (a) it has
>    a child <attList> (b) its @type attribute says what it is.  Do we
>    need to maintain both of these? If we do, should an ODD processor
>    raise an error when it finds an <attList> inside a <classSpec
>    type="model"> or a <classSpec type="atts"> which does not contain
>    an <attList>? If we don't, which one should go?

The underlying question is wheter the disctinction is a fondamental  
one or not. We have not discussed that aloud, but I would like to  
make the notion of model class (to which you can add elements ad  
libitum) and attribute class (to which you could add new attributes  
ad libitum...) more coherent. A topic for a further council meeting  
(BTW, any plans?,  would you want to come to Berlin?)

>
> 4. What did we decide to do about sequence? I have written the
>    following in my revision of TD:
>      <p>The sequence in which members of a class appear in a  
> content model when
> one of the
>      sequence options is used is dependent on the ODD processor in  
> use. It
>      will always be the same sequence for a given class reference,  
> but is
>      not in principle user-accessible. </p>
>
> ________________________________

I agree with Seb: be tough on the issue. Processor should respect the  
order provider by the specification!