[tei-council] MD chapter revised: namespace rules

[Sebastian Rahtz]

James Cummings wrote:
>
> This seems reasonable to me.  Would I also have a short-form of saying 
> I want my element not to be a *move* but a *copy*?  I.e. given me the 
> same content model/class affiliations as element X?
I'd regard it as a luxury, but not that hard to do, I suppose.
>
>> I am groping here towards a work plan
>> for rewriting Roma. 
>
> Yes, I recognise that, and think there will be a lot more work here 
> than perhaps originally conceived.
too right. its going to be a major pain.
>
>> 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>.
>
> Current consensus seems to be that they should so they don't collide 
> with existing elements, etc.
how can attributes collide with elements?

it seems to me that in XML world attributes are regarded differently,
for instance in not being followed by default in XSLT. So
I'd regard it as plausible to leave them alone, and let all
attributes (including TEI ones) wallow in the default null mudpool


-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

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