[tei-council] keeping @ident unique

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 7 Jan 2014, at 21:25, Syd Bauman <s.bauman at NEU.EDU> wrote:

> So I still don't think I'm understanding. At first I thought Lou was
> suggesting a single flat namespace. That, I think would be awful,
> since we would not be able to have two constructs with the same
> ident.

actually sounds a good principle to me… (with the exception of attributes, of course)

> So now I think maybe Sebastian and Lou were suggesting that we have a
> single namespace over all identifiable objects. So we would
> differentiate constructs with the same name by using different @ident
> values.

well, no,. I’d rename things until they didn’t have the same name :-}
do you have a good example of where you really want to use the same
name twice? (apart from attributes)

>>> I'm wondering if we wouldn't do better to have a single name
>>> space for each *type* of identifiable object.
>> 
>> that’s a given, I think, and where we are now. 
> 
> So I'm confused.

I think I was lying :-{ do don’t be confused

> ...
> 
> So I don't think I understand the problem, and how changing idents
> fixes it. One take on this is that the original post here is just a
> bug report that the stylesheet processing the <specDesc> is using
>  *[@ident='$key']
> rather than
>  (elementSpec|classSpec|macroSpec)[@ident='certainty’]

yes, indeed, just that.

I merely observed (and everyone can disagree) that I find having
modules and elements with the same name is confusing
--
Sebastian Rahtz
Director (Research) of Academic IT
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431