[tei-council] attribute names (was MD chapter revised: namespace rules)

[James Cummings]

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Lou Burnard wrote:
>> Well, as regards namespace, the options seems to be:
>>
>> 1. The line of least resistance: say that your schema is not in any
>> namespace (by saying ns="" on your <schemaSpec>)
>> 2. The odour of sanctity: say that the attribute is new (by saying
>> ns="http://myspace.com" on the <attDef> in the <elementSpec> in your
>> <schemaSpec>)
>> 3. Political correctness gone mad: say that the element is new (by
>> saying ns="http://myspace.com" on the <elementSpec> in your <schemaSpec>)
> and leave the attribute in the empty namespace in that case
>>
>> Of these three, I believe (but I'm not sure) that (2) and (3) are both
>> what we are currently calling "conformant", but obvious (2) makes more
>> sense.
> I agree. And note that the most interchangeable format is (2).

I agree, if Christian adds @type to tei:p, then it is tei:p/@my:type...
only the attribute is in a different namespace, not the element.  If he
changes the content model of tei:p in any way which is not a pure subset,
then it would become my:p.

>> We don't have a name for (1) yet.
> "Overlap".  The schema Christian makes for (1) overlaps the TEI mostly.

I believe on the little chart you produced recently (for an in-house
discussion) of different aspects of Conformance, this might be 'Extended TEI'.

-James

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