[tei-council] Conformance .... the continuing saga

Syd Bauman Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
Wed Apr 4 12:15:18 EDT 2007


> Yup, along with the not-adding-elements to the TEI namespace thing.
> ;-)

Which, I am worried, will not go over very well. I could be wrong,
but I don't think many TEI users will balk at the idea of not being
able to use DTD parametrization for customization, especially once
they've been introduced to ODD and realize that they couldn't just
port their P4 extensions over easily, anyway. But I worry that a lot
of people will be put off by the namespace purity.


> I certainly won't -- what are some use cases for doing so assuming
> one can use ODD to do the same thing?

I haven't come up with one, because you can't just port your P4
customization files, and because you smack into namespace headaches.
BTW, I was using Wendell as a generic example of a marvelously
maverick Relax NG expert -- I don't pretend to actually know what
Wendell will and won't do.


> If we aren't supporting it then I say remove it (except maybe a
> note about the change and how it used to be done).

Maybe. I'm not too fond of "how it used to be done" descriptions,
myself. 


> > Perhaps a discussion of how to stitch together TEI Relax NG
> > schema fragments should be the subject of a white paper, and not
> > in the Guidelines?
> Isn't this what the now-conference-like bit of the TEIMM is for?

Hmmm.... while presenting this kind of information at the MM is a
good idea, I was thinking of a paper something like a HOWTO but with
more discussion of the issues, published by TEI-C, available from the
TEI-C website.




More information about the tei-council mailing list