[tei-council] namespaces and modifications

[Daniel O'Donnell]

As somebody has done both of these things, I can say that this sounds
reasonable--in fact is probably helpful as it reminds one constantly of
the modifications.

When I did some of these kind of modifications in P3 SGML (I messed
around with w and added a couple of other things) it was an issue to
remember what had changed and how. I think this is a useful conformance
approach.

-dan

On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:40 +0100, Lou Burnard wrote:
> The consensus seems to be that if  I add a completely new element, it 
> makes sense to define it as belonging to a new namespace. Presumably the 
> same also applies if I define a new attribute for an existing element, 
> so I could get by with just putting the new attribute in a non-TEI 
> namespace.  But hold on,  what if I get the new attribute by adding the 
> element to an existing attribute class which it wasn't in before? Now I 
> have to distinguish the @type I get from att.typed in a kosher manner 
> from the exact same attribute which I got by modification!
> 
> It seems to me that the only sane thing to do is to say that my newly 
> modified element is in a new namespace, and leave it at that. So if 
> there is a TEI:foo, and a my:foo, and even the bits of my:foo which are 
> unchanged from the TEI scheme are still in a different namespace as soon 
> as I tweak any part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
-- 
Daniel Paul O'Donnell, PhD
Director, Digital Medievalist Project http://www.digitalmedievalist.org/
Associate Professor and Chair, Department of English
University of Lethbridge
Lethbridge AB T1K 3M4
Canada
Vox: +1 403 329-2378
Fax: +1 403 382-7191