[tei-council] TEI Conformance

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Wed Nov 22 05:55:09 EST 2006

James Cummings wrote:
> I would be interested to know why, so maybe if you could think about this.  I
> understand there are some _difficulties_, but none that I could think of which
> were deal breakers.  It just seems like the 'right thing to do' in reading about
> how the W3C views namespaces. 
My memory of the older discussion was that it was to do with
whether each module should have its own namespace. Which
is a different issue (maybe)
>  And if people were to add their entirely new
> elements in a different namespace, then it also makes sense for TEI to suggest a
> namespace for this (rather than every user come up with one).  I'm in no way
> suggesting this change should be taken lightly (but we shouldn't just dismiss it
> either).
I think we can afford to have wider discussion on this.
Let's draft the conformance chapter with this as a suggestion,
then hawk it round TEI-L for comment and feedback.
>   Is it that a renaming is a further constraint on the semantics of an
> element?  I.e. is <email> a specific type of <addrLine> ?  If it isn't, then one
> shouldn't equiv to it.
good point.

Another worry:  if I say <foo> is equivalent
to <div type="foo">, but then make <foo> a member of model.dateLike,
what does it mean?

the implication is that if I use <equiv> I must also
make my content model and class membership equivalent.

but this is all rules about how to use <equiv>, which is a separate

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

More information about the tei-council mailing list