[tei-council] namespaces and modifications

[James Cummings]

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.

Hrmmm.  If I've added a brand new element, my:foo, I've done so in my own 
namespace, of course.  But if I add it to class att.typed, it joins that club 
and gets the TEI element tei:typed, right?  So, playing devil's advocate, why 
should that attribute be in any other namespace than the TEI? As long as it is 
still a TEI attribute, it should be in the TEI namespace, right?  Just like we 
use xml:id and xml:lang.

<tei:div xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" my:newAtt="blort">

<my:foo xmlns:my="http://my-new-namespace.info/" tei:type="wibble"/>

</tei:div>


I'm happy to be argued down about this, I just want to make sure we are clear on 
the reasons why.  So explain it to me again like I'm even more ignorant than I 
am....

-James

-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk