[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

[Lou Burnard]

Wording can always be improved, but I think the intention in att.rsnging 
is quite clear.

-- if both @match and @target are supplied, then @match is searched 
within the context of @target
-- if only @match is present, then @match is searched within the context 
of the parent of the current node
-- if neither is present, then the context is the current node

On 24/07/13 15:44, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> That's how I interpret it to, but some people interpret the words in
> att.scoping, "within the context of the element bearing this attribute"
> as meaning the context is the `<precision>` element, not its parent.
> (This is confused by the fact that it explicitly says the context is the
> parent element if both @match and @target attributes are omitted.)
>
> I agree with Lou, but I think the wording could be improved on
> att.scoping (and therefore the example there fixed as well).
>
> On 2013-07-24 15:40, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> No, wait, why do we think it's wrong as it is?
>>
>> See definition for @match on att.ranging -- it says that if only @match
>> is preent, the context is the parent element, which in the second
>> example would be <date>
>>
>> On 24/07/13 15:38, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>> So wait, I'm fixing the example from saying match="@notBefore" to saying
>>> match="../@notBefore"?
>>>
>>> (The opposite of what you told me to correct it to on the ticket?)
>>>
>>> On 2013-07-24 15:37, James Cummings wrote:
>>>> On 24/07/13 15:32, Hugh Cayless wrote:
>>>>> Should you also fix the example that's in there now, and has an incorrect @match?
>>>> Yes, if you (Gabby), could fix the example (especially if adding
>>>> an additional one) that'd be good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -James
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:29 , Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay done. As I note on the ticket, I agree with Lou that discussion of
>>>>>> these attributes is needed in the guidelines, and I haven't had time to
>>>>>> add that. (And I dare say won't before Friday.) I leave the ticket open
>>>>>> as it remains a priority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we maybe include Thomas Carlson's example in the elementSpec, as
>>>>>> a start? That seems safe enough...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2013-07-24 15:22, James Cummings wrote:
>>>>>>> I guess I don't mind if Gabby commits the change quickly. As
>>>>>>> Sebastian is doing the release on Friday that leaves us all
>>>>>>> tomorrow for extra proofreading!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sebastian is on holiday today and thursday, so probably
>>>>>>> can't/won't comment and is planning to do the release on Friday.
>>>>>>>        This leaves plenty of time for people to point out errors in
>>>>>>> the generation of the outputs. Martin can attest that I made good
>>>>>>> with my promise of a Tunnock's dark chocolate covered caramel
>>>>>>> wafer last time for finding lots of typos. (In case that
>>>>>>> encourages you!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last release we noticed, during the release period, that a typo
>>>>>>> meant the links to the translated versions on the index.html
>>>>>>> pages were broken (fixed during release).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please do have a look at the outputs at
>>>>>>> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/ and under
>>>>>>> http://bits.nsms.ox.ac.uk:8080/jenkins/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/release/
>>>>>>> and check that all web pages work as expected, all the schemas
>>>>>>> and generated content do what they are supposed to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 24/07/13 14:39, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
>>>>>>>> I think if we do 2.4.1 this week (as it now seems), then 2.5.0 should
>>>>>>>> wait until the next cycle, probably at the end of the year--when we'll
>>>>>>>> have a bunch of new interesting things to include, as well as just
>>>>>>>> correcting the oversight in `<precision>`.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There's still stuff to talk about re responsibility, relation and match,
>>>>>>>> for example.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2013-07-24 13:40, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, this is a moot point as we're now frozen and it's not in. But
>>>>>>>>> FWIW, I think both GB and LB are right, so I'm in favor of
>>>>>>>>> a) adding att.ranging to <precision>, and
>>>>>>>>> b) not doing so now, so we can make sure the examples and discussion
>>>>>>>>>           make sense, and consider deprecating @degree
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can make a 2.5.0 release in a week or two, eh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dr Gabriel BODARD
>>>>>> Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Digital Humanities
>>>>>> King's College London
>>>>>> Boris Karloff Building
>>>>>> 26-29 Drury Lane
>>>>>> London WC2B 5RL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
>>>>>> E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
>>>>>> http://www.currentepigraphy.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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