[tei-council] constraint prose WINITA

[Martin Holmes]

On 14-01-04 02:45 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> I've now checked in a revised version of the TD chapter. Most revisions
> are simplifications and clarifications of what it says, mostly about
> constraintSpecs and datatypes. I added one non-schematron example, but a
> better one would still be useful.
>
> I get an error message on my local build because of the reference to
> @source on the <specDesc> for <egXML> presumably because this attribute
> is inherited from a class rather than locally defined. Which I thought
> we'd agreed it shouldn't. ???

This shouldn't cause a problem -- the Note on @atts says "The attribute 
names listed may include both attributes inherited from a class and 
those defined explicitly for the associated element." And yet the 
ValidatorLog.xml does show

specDesc: 
TEI[1]/text[2]/body[3]/div["TD"]/div["TDcrystalsCE"]/div["TDeg"]/p[7]/specList[8]/ 
refers to source in
               egXML, which does not exist

I wonder if this is a namespace issue? <egXML> is in a different 
namespace, and this is AFAIK the only place in the Guidelines where a 
specDesc for a non-TEI-namespace element attempts to retrieve attributes 
from an attribute class.

Cheers,
Martin


> Sorry for the delay: Oxygen crashed on me for the first time in years.
>
>
>
>    On 04/01/14 17:31, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> I'm also supposed to be adding documentation and an example for <attRef>
>> to that chapter. I'll hold off until you've both finished your work.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 14-01-04 09:15 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>>> On 04/01/14 14:50, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>>> he prose of <ref target="#TDTAGCONS">22.4.4.3 Additional
>>>> constraints</> needs some work. Mostly it says <gi>constraint</>
>>>> when it means <gi>constraintSpec</>. But also, e.g. "outside the
>>>> scope of conventional schema languages" asserts that rule-based
>>>> schema languages are not conventional, which their more ardent
>>>> adherents might wage war over.
>>> I've revised that section quite a bit: will check it in later tonight so
>>> you can see if you think it's improving.
>>>
>>>> Also, the 2 examples of non-Schematron <constraint>s are in the
>>>> tagdocs for <constraint> and <constraintSpec>, and for the former it
>>>> is the only example. Certainly the tagdoc for <constraint> should
>>>> show Schematron constraints. But shouldn't the main prose demonstrate
>>>> non-Schematron constraints?
>>> Even more surprisingly, imo, the main text doesn't even explain what the
>>> dickens this "schematron" thing is -- no mention of e.g. ISO/IEC
>>> 19757-3:2006
>>> Information technology -- Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL) --
>>> Part 3: Rule-based validation -- Schematron anywhere that I can see.
>>>
>>>
>