[tei-council] reviewing SA again;what is standoff?

[Syd Bauman]

> > -- why can't it [stand-off] make claims about the content? 
> oh, it can. I am not saying "your" sort of standoff is at all
> wrong, or doesn't happy. All I am claiming, on little evidence, 
> is that is rarer.

Oh. OK. Sorry, didn't sound that way. Perhaps you should give or
point me to an example of the more common kind. In the meantime, keep
in mind that the mechanism described in 14.9 is explicitly intended
for situations like the need to mark up R/O data and handling
multiple hierarchies. To my (limited) knowledge this kind of
stand-off markup is what is always used for these purposes. (Although
in the past we didn't have an agreed upon mechanism, i.e. XInclude.)

I would certainly understand if you had a counterexample and thus
were objecting to the use of the word "all" in the 3rd paragraph of
14.9.1, but so far your concerns hardly seem to merit discarding the
entire section.


> I wonder if XInclude in an entity works?
>  <!ENTITY here "<xi:include href='foo.bar'/>">

Presuming the namespaces, etc. are declared, I don't see why not. May
need to add an extra processing stage if your software does XInclude
processing before entity resolution.


> > Remember that what it means is that you do not have to worry about
> > getting your ODD just right so that your schema permits <xi:include>
> > where you need it. It does not prevent you from doing this, but gives
> > you permission to skip this step, and just rely on your processor's
> > capability to do the XInclude processing before validation. 
> >   
> its just a matter of wording, but I don't think
> the current 14.9 reads like your paragraph above......

Well, as you're fully aware, you, Lou, & I are in the midst of a
discussion about rewording this particular bit, and we all agree that
the current wording has an unfortunate implication that my paragraph
above was intended to clarify.