[tei-council] MD chapter revised: namespace rules

[Sebastian Rahtz]

James Cummings wrote:
>
> So you are suggesting that if I want to rename 'div1' to 'section' then the
> entire document is no longer TEI, doesn't use TEI elements and so shouldn't
> be in the TEI namespace??!  That seems much more extreme than anything
> we've been suggesting, doesn't it?
>   
no, I am saying that Johann might prefer to see it this
way, to avoid the chop and change of namespaces
every other line. His choice.
>
>  While command-line Roma maybe
> should have this distinction, I'm convinced that we should strive to have
> webRoma only produce ODDs (to generate schemas) to validate Conformant
> documents.
>   
yes, whichever way you do it, conformant documents
are involved. the distinction is between conformant
and interchangeable, ie where the <altIdent>s have
been reversed. all conformant documents have
the potential to be canonical as well, after a transformation.

So how about Roma shows you a new paradigm?

Instead of "renaming div1 to section", it
only  lets you add a new element called "section";
however, when you create it, you have the short-form
option of saying "I want it to be a *move* of div1,
but I want to change the name,
the description and the examples". So you get
the "edit element" screen, but with no chance
to change classes or content model; you are
*forced* to use a new namespace.

This removes the possibility in webRoma (command
line Roma is just an ODD processor, so not
relevant) of doing simple renames. Internally,
we manage the "move of div1to section" as
a change of div1 and an <altIdent>.

I am groping here towards a work plan
for rewriting Roma. If we can make the use
of <altIdent> much harder, that strange
case which bothers us arises less often; either
way, a new namespace for a moved or new
element is mandatory; and the algorithm for that
is that we start off forcing you to think one up,
and thereafter propose the same as you said
last time.

Whether newly added attributes are forced to a
namespace, as opposed to the default null one,
is tricky. I am personally inclined to think
that this is <soCalled>political
correctness gone mad</soCalled>.

I still believe that we have an option in Roma
(maybe just on the desktop version for advanced
use) which ignores the <altIdent>s
and generates a script to reverse them and
<equiv>s you have stuck in, probably by hand,
in documents.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431