[tei-council] listChange example

[Martin Holmes]

On 12-10-17 05:48 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:42, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
>   wrote:
>
>> On 12-10-17 05:38 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:34, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Feasibly valid" doesn't apply to well-formed fragments, though, does it?
>>>
>>>
>>> yes, why not?
>>
>> Well, it says:
>>
>> feasible
>>     the example could be transformed into a valid document by inserting any number of valid attributes and child elements anywhere within it; or it is valid against a version of the schema concerned in which the provision of character data, list, element, or attribute values has been made optional.
>>
>> A fragment consisting of sibling nodes with no single root node can't be validated, and the insertion of child elements can't fix that, can it?
>>
>
> yes, but if you treat it as several distinct fragments it can
>
> or maybe Jing interpolates parents as well, in feasible mode?

It doesn't appear to add a wrapper root element. I just removed the root 
<TEI> element from a valid file and validated it with jing -f, and got this:

ABBE2.xml:11:16: error: element "teiHeader" not allowed here; expected 
element "TEI" (with xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0")

ABBE2.xml:39:6: fatal: The markup in the document following the root 
element must be well-formed.

So not only should jing be finding a fragment like this one invalid, 
it's not valid according to our own definition of @valid="feasible".

Is the build process actually checking whether <egXML>s that claim to be 
valid actually are? I thought it was. Perhaps it only does that if they 
have an explicit @valid="true"?

Cheers,
Martin



> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research Support) of Academic IT Services
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)