[tei-council] Should Roma be doing this?
James Cummings
James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Wed Feb 6 01:23:33 EST 2013
Gosh, interesting. I think if there is a default value then it
should be impossible to have a closed valList without that being
included. I don't think it should automatically include it...but
simply raise an error when processing such an ODD.
But this is just a gut feeling,
-James
On 05/02/13 23:38, Martin Holmes wrote:
> I have an ODD file containing this:
>
> <elementSpec ident="list" mode="change">
> <attList>
> <attDef ident="type" mode="change" usage="opt">
> <valList mode="add" type="closed">
> <valItem ident="ordered"/>
> <valItem ident="unordered"/>
> </valList>
> </attDef>
>
> </attList>
> </elementSpec>
>
> When I run Roma and generate an RNG schema, it has this:
>
> <optional>
> <attribute
> xmlns:a="http://relaxng.org/ns/compatibility/annotations/1.0"
> name="type" a:defaultValue="simple">
> <a:documentation>describes the form of the
> list.</a:documentation>
> <choice>
> <value>ordered</value>
> <a:documentation/>
> <value>unordered</value>
> <a:documentation/>
> </choice>
> </attribute>
> </optional>
>
> Note the default value of "simple". With this schema, the following
> becomes invalid:
>
> <list>
>
> because the processor assumes the default value of "simple" in the
> absence of the attribute (even though the attribute is optional), and
> because "simple" is not in the list of allowed values, the element is
> invalid. At least, I presume that's what's happening.
>
> Should this be the case? Or should Roma detect when a default value is
> not included in the list of allowed values in the ODD, and discard it?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
--
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
More information about the tei-council
mailing list