[tei-council] MD chapter revised: namespace rules

James Cummings James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Wed Apr 11 12:30:19 EDT 2007


Lou Burnard wrote:
> In message <1176303249.4952.3.camel at caedmon> daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca writes:
>>> I was suggesting that TEI Conformant documents could have renamings in the
>>> TEI namespace, as long as they could be reverted according to the
>>> information in the referenced ODD.  And then TEI Interchange Format would
>>> insist that any such renamings be reverted before interchange.
>> This is what I understood as well.
> OK, it's time to get radical. What do we need "TEI Interchange format" for? Why
> do we need to define it at all?
> 
> TEI-conformant documents must be valid XML and must have an ODD. Why do we need
> to go beyond that?
> 
> So far after much scratching of heads, I don't think I have come up with any
> need for the concept beyond the possibility of non-TEI names cluttering up the
> namespace (which I also think we have now agreed to get rid of).

In my mind it was solely there to insist on TEI Pure Subset versions of 
documents for interchange.  I.e. to revert all renamings etc.

I suppose that idea still *could* have some small merit, in that if I 
have renamed tei:div[@type='chapter'] to my:chapter then in a TEI 
Interchange Format it would, one assume be renamed back.  This is why I 
never viewed renaming changes as being as dirty as content model 
changes...there was always a possibility of them being switched back. 
Once you change the content model you can't really do that in most 
cases.  Does that mean those documents should never be interchanged? 
No, of course not.  Thus, TEI Interchange Format really becomes 
meaningless, just another way to say TEI Pure Subset.

> The keen eyed readers amongst you will have noticed that chapter IN has now
> disappeared from P5. I see no need to bring it back, since it is of purely
> antiquarian interest.
> 
> So, TEI Conformant documents are ipso facto in the interchange format. End of
> story. We don't need to worry about non TEI conformant (but interchangeable) XML
> documents.

I think I can agree with that now.

-James





More information about the tei-council mailing list