[tei-council] Precision

O'Donnell, Dan daniel.odonnell at uleth.ca
Fri Jun 5 13:53:10 EDT 2009


I don't find the xpath string with xml:id more clumsy than spreading values over two atts--once you accept that your using xpath syntax to point at atts, it seems to me you're already half pregnant and may as well resign yourself to the whole experience. And that is an important point that in this case @target is really just shorthand for //*[xml:id='(value of target)']. All other paths would have to be built on the @path.

Of course //*[xml:id=x] is going to be a very common prefix to any path in this situation, so maybe it makes sense to use @target in this way. 

-----------
Daniel O'Donnell
University of Lethbridge
(From my mobile telephone)

--- original message ---
From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [tei-council] Precision
Date: June 5, 2009
Time: 11:32:44 

O'Donnell, Dan wrote:
> Thanks Sebastian. That's what I meant. So couldn't we point out our 
> uncertainty about Gaby's bishop using sthing like 
> path='//*/id(d102)/@to' rather than target='#d102' path='@to'. 

well,
id() does not always work (as JC just pointed out to me off list), so
in fact its //*[@xml:id='d102']/@to
which is a bit clumsy

we discussed using this method earlier on today, but it
looked cumbersome. But thats why Lou is consulting the
council, others may find it better to be consistent
and extensible at the cost of being verbose. It also
lets you point at stuff without an ID, of course.

I think your concern about mixing two schemes is
important.

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

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente


More information about the tei-council mailing list