[tei-council] Proposal <idno> coverage -SF 2493417

[Lou Burnard]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the multiple <idno> solution is 
better. But the @key value solution does do the job -- and doesn't 
require any changes at all in the current system.

Peter Boot wrote:
> Sebastian Rahtz schreef:
>> in the short-term, I am unconvinced that @key cannot do the
>> job for Laurent
> 
> Well, some reasons which haven't been mentioned up to now:
> 
> If the choice is between
> 
>    key="nldai:info:eu-repo/dai/nl/12456454
>          openid:https://me.yahoo.com/johndoe61"
> 
> and
> 
>    <idno type="nldai">info:eu-repo/dai/nl/12456454</idno>
>    <idno type="openid">https://me.yahoo.com/johndoe61</idno>
> 
> I would favour the idno element over the key attribute because
> 
> * the @type attribute's values can be very straightforwardly
>   constricted to an known list of values, which is harder to
>   do when multiple schemes and values are stored as part of a
>   single text string (in the @key attribute);
> * both the values and the schemes are straightforward to access
>   in XSLT when using the <idno> solution;
> * a rule-of-thumb in xml design is for me: if something has
>   properties of its own (in this case, the identifier's scheme),
>   it should be an element rather than an attribute.
>