[tei-council] @cRef survey

[Kevin Hawkins]

Okay, I will post to the Library SIG list.

On 2/7/2012 10:21 AM, James Cummings wrote:
>
> Could you make sure that the Library SIG people circulate it? Not
> sure if they use it at all, but one of the comments on my P4
> Survey results were that many Library people probably don't see
> it because they don't read TEI-L.  (I don't think this will
> change your results in the slightest however...)
>
> -James
>
>
> On 07/02/12 13:47, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've had only nine responses to my @cRef survey so far, which suggests
>> it's not in very wide use. People using it tend to be using it slightly
>> incorrectly -- sometimes they're using canonical references with spaces
>> in them, or they're using #id-in-different-document or
>> #id-which-dunt-exist, and in no case has anyone created a<cRefPattern>.
>>
>> So if we deprecated it, we'd annoy a small number of people, but there's
>> no fix we could make to it that would bring them all into the fold of
>> correct usage anyway. Usage is as much of a mess as the definitions are.
>>
>> To deal with this issue, as well as that of @key, I think we need to
>> take three steps:
>>
>> 1. Develop a proper strategy for the use of private URI schemes (with
>> something similar to<cRefPattern>   where people can properly document
>> how their private schemes are to be dereferenced or understood). This
>> should divert a large proportion of the current usage of @cRef (and
>> @key) over to @ref and @target.
>>
>> 2. Decide whether we want to keep @key and @cRef, or deprecate one or both.
>>
>> 3. If we're keeping them, decide what their datatypes should be. In the
>> case of @cRef, create a proper class for it.
>>
>> 4. If we're not keeping them, do we need replacement attribute(s) for
>> their use-cases?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>
>