[tei-council] TEI Conformance
James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Tue Nov 21 13:16:30 EST 2006
Dan O'Donnell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-21-11 at 16:28 +0000, James Cummings wrote:
>> - Any new customisations of the TEI schemas should be documented with a valid
>> TEI ODD file.
>> - Where possible any renamings or new elements, attributes and classes, should
>> be related to existing TEI structures with the use of <equiv>.
> Generalising James's later observation "If it isn't able to be
> documented with <equiv>, then surely it isn't really part of the TEI" to
> the level of "if it is a duck, then it ought to be able to walk and talk
> like one", let me ask about these last two points:
> I liked the way the first four were stated: good rules and very clear.
They basically come from the existing chapter.
> What about the last two:
I had stated these differently because I didn't want to make them requirements.
(Although I don't mind if others believe they should.
> -A TEI-conformant TEI P5 document must document any new customisations
> of the TEI Schemas with a valid TEI ODD file
How about "A TEI-conformant TEI P5 document *should* document *any*
customisations of the TEI Schemas with a valid TEI ODD file" ... Any existing
TEI-supported customisations already have an ODD file, so that customisations
are new is implicit?
> -A TEI-conformant TEI P5 document must relate any renamed or new
> elements, attributes, and classes to existing TEI structures using
I don't agree with this one. I think that any renamed or otherwise modified
existing elements, or new elements (etc.) which have TEI equivalents should use
tei:equiv. But this isn't all new elements (etc.), because you can add elements
which don't have TEI equivalents. Those, I suggest, might be better in a
More information about the tei-council