[tei-council] missing refLists (was Re: <g> in <line> not allowed)

[Martin Holmes]

>> mind you, i do think putting it in the source is redundant. if it can be derived automatically, which fossilise the current state? if you add a new
>> section to a chapter and add a specDesc pointing at <line>, you''ll probably forget to update the spec for <line> itself

This is risky. I just made this commit in January:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r11556 | martindholmes | 2013-01-31 15:25:39 -0800 (Thu, 31 Jan 2013) | 
8 lines

relation, listRelation and the (deprecated) relationGrp all had links
in their specs to the CC chapter, where none of them are mentioned.
Changed the links to point to where listRelation and relation are
explained, in ND. Also changed the @xml:id of the ND chapter section,
which was the unconventional "relation", to the more conventional
"NDPERSREL". There was only one ptr to "#relation", in the same
chapter, which I've also updated.

We don't want to introduce links from the reference page to a section of 
the Guidelines where the element or attribute is not actually discussed, 
nor do we want the first link in a series to be the least relevant. I 
think human oversight is required here.

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-04-19 03:08 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 19 Apr 2013, at 10:21, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/04/13 10:12, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>>>
>>> i am wondering whether to automate this by looking for the
>>> nearest ancestor <div> which has a specDesc pointing at the relevant
>>> element. would people agree this is a worthwhile strategy?
>>
>> we probably need references to *all* such <div>s, since <specDesc>s for the same element can appear in multiple places.
>
> fair does. if there's specDesc for an element, link to it
>
> mind you, i do think putting it in the source is redundant. if it can be derived automatically, which fossilise the current state? if you add a new
> section to a chapter and add a specDesc pointing at <line>, you''ll probably forget to update the spec for <line> itself
>>
>> i suggest you try adding them automatically, and then we can check to see which ones have been missed. I won't be totally surprised to find a few elements which don't even make it into a specDesc.
>>
>>
> i think i checked that just now, and didn't find any, but I agree there matt be some
>
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research) of Academic IT
> 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)