[tei-council] 2.4.1 or 2.5.0?

Wed Jul 24 10:56:06 EDT 2013

Surely that should read something like:

If @target is not present, a relative XPath in @match has the parent element as its context. If neither attribute is present, the expression of certainty applies to the context of the certainty element itself, i.e. its parent element.

On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:51 , Gabriel Bodard <gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk> wrote:

> Is that what the prose in att.scoping says?
> 
> @match	supplies an arbitrary XPath expression identifying a set of 
> nodes, selected within the context identified by the @target attribute 
> if this is supplied, or within the context of the element bearing this 
> attribute if it is not.
> 
> If neither attribute is present, the expression of certainty applies to 
> the context of the certainty element itself, i.e. its parent element.
> 
> If it does mean what Lou says below, it certainly needs to be clarified...
> 
> G
> 
> On 2013-07-24 15:47, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> 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
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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