[tei-council] NH

[Syd Bauman]

> Not at all. We make no claim that the content of <egXML>s is valid
> TEI. As it happens, we do validate them against a TEI schema, but
> that's just for convenience. You could extend the ODD which checks
> <egXML> to support other things too. 

Ah, yes, right. Thank you, I had completely forgotten. That would be
the P5/p5odds-ex.odd file, then, wouldn't it? Of course the content
model for <egXML> is based on something that is generated in
Exemplars/ by the Exemplars/Makefile (which I have to admit, I've
never understood). If I were to expand the content of <egXML>, would
I do that by changing the <content> in P5/p5odds-ex.odd, or by adding
a <ref> directly to Utilities/makeexnames.xsl? (The former seems much
better from a design standpoint, but I don't know that
Exemplars/exnames.xml isn't used elsewhere, too.)


> Its a moot question as to whether an <egXML> should indicate
> whether its content is supposed to be valid TEI. 

Yes, at this point it is. I plan to reintroduce my suggestion for an
attribute which distinguishes between valid, invalid, or no claim
(and, in addition, ill-formed for <eg>, but not <egXML>) at some
point for 1.1. It may be appropriate to expand that idea to include
against what schema validity is claimed.