[tei-council] namespaces and customization

[Laurent Romary]

Still, I understand Martin's worry and if we think formally of cleanness as subsumption (along a relation is-more constrained-than) than adding eg to att.typed could be seen as clean (any processor with a TEI-all coverage would not have a problem with this, it would just not "see" the corresponding attributes). I let the future council chair to lead this discussion next year :-}
Laurent

Le 19 déc. 2011 à 09:58, James Cummings a écrit :

> On 19/12/11 03:28, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> That's a very good question. Personally, I wouldn't have thought that
>> customizing an existing element would require moving it to a new
>> namespace -- unless you changed it beyond all recognition, but in that
>> case I would have thought giving it a new name would make more sense.
>> Surely just adding tei:eg to att,typed wouldn't require moving it out of
>> the tei: namespace?
> 
> I think that is exactly the intention. If you add something to an 
> element making it not a pure subset of the original element (conformant) 
> or automatically able to be cleanly reversed (conformable) then it is no 
> longer the TEI element as the TEI has defined it. Thus should be in a 
> new namespace. You don't want to have something that purports to be a 
> TEI 'eg' element but has lots of attributes which it doesn't have in the 
> TEI, unless these attributes are in a non-TEI namespace. So you could 
> add @my:type and @my:subtype to 'eg' and be perfectly TEI conformant, 
> but adding att.typed to 'eg' is an unclean change and thus should be 
> signalled by a namespace.
> 
> I believe that was the thinking at least,
> 
> -James
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> 
>> On 11-12-18 03:28 PM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>>>     From reading chapter 23 of the Guidelines, I'm unclear on whether you
>>> are supposed to define a new namespace for every element or attribute
>>> affected by an unclean customization.  I don't see it explicitly stated,
>>> but it sounds that way.  For example, in section 23.2.1.5,<tei:eg>   is
>>> modified to add it to att.typed, but as I understand it, the element
>>> then moves into a new namespace (http://example.com/ns).  So each
>>> instance of<eg>   should actually be<myNamepsace:eg>   instead of
>>> <tei:eg>.  Is that right?
>>> 
>>> Furthermore, I see this sentence in section 23.2.2, after a discussion
>>> of definining a namespace:
>>> 
>>> "Similar methods may be used if a modification (clean or unclean) is
>>> made to the content model or some other aspect of an element, or if it
>>> declares a new element."
>>> 
>>> In what cases would you define a new namespace for a clean customization
>>> of an element?
>>> 
>>> --Kevin
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
> Computing Services, University of Oxford
> -- 
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived

Laurent Romary
INRIA & HUB-IDSL
laurent.romary at inria.fr