[tei-council] a proposal for a change to ODD (copy of ticket I just put in SF)
lou.burnard at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Fri Mar 5 05:20:37 EST 2010
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2010, at 10:10, Lou wrote:
>> Not wishing to be drawn into speculation about what Laurent may or may
>> not have in mind, I do think there is a case to be made for saying that
>> when I ask for a given element, I actually mean "this element and all
>> its possible children".
> in all possible module universes? just add <p>, I bet it can contain most of the TEI
> within it…..
No, not in all possible universes; in the universe created by the rest
of my selections.
> and don't forget that if you <a> has a mandatory child <b> and an optional child <d>,
> but you also ask for <e>, in which <d> is mandatory, then <d> will pop up in <a>
> to your surprise.
Wy should I be surprised? If <d> is mandatory in <e>, I would expect to
get it; if it's optional in <a> therefore I would still expect to see it.
>> This is not the same as saying "I want this element and all its
>> mandatory children" of course -- I believe that ODD processors are
>> required to do this already (
> not so, for good or bad. thats why/cos the TEI is ambiguous
Ah, I had my doubts about that. I didn't claim that any ODD processor
actually does it, just my fervent belief that they should be required to...
>> Hence my proposal on the SF ticket for an additional attribute on
>> <elementSpec> (or <elementref> if we go that way)
> if you can spell out the total algorithm
SMOP ... I think we;re required to spell out the intended behaviour not
More information about the tei-council