[tei-council] issues on Schematron and deprecation

[Martin Holmes]

On 14-01-09 02:58 PM, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> I was thinking of exactly this recently: for the Map of London
>> project, we maintain a separate Schematron file full of constraints
>> like this:
>>     <pattern>
>>       <rule context="text()">
>>         <assert test='not(contains(., "&apos;"))'>
>>           "Straight apostrophe" characters are not permitted. Please
>>           use the Right Single Quotation Mark (U+2019) character
>>           instead.
>>         </assert>
>>       </rule>
>>     </pattern>
>> In other words, we force the use of a curly apostrophe instead of a
>> straight one in all text nodes. This sort of thing should really be
>> in the ODD file. Is this the sort of thing you imagine being a
>> child of <schemaSpec>?
>
> Sure! This rule, of course, has a context=, so it is not affected by
> how we generate a context= for those without. If anyone has any
> thoughts on this, feel free to speak up. Possibilities high on my
> list are:
>   1) / (i.e., root)

This has my vote; I can imagine circumstances in which you might want to 
require the presence of a PI or something like that.

Cheers,
Martin

>   2) /* (i.e., outermost element, whatever it is)
>   3) those elements specified on start=
>   4) those elements specified on start= when a child of root
>   5) the outermost of the elements specified on start=
>
> (In all but quite unusual circumstances, 2-5 would all yield the same
> result.)
>
>
>> This [2 differnt URIs bound to same prefix in different parts of
>> ODD] would be a perverse case, surely. Even if it's not technically
>> wrong, it would be bad practice to bind the same prefix to two
>> different namespaces in the same document.
>
> Definitely would be against my idea of "best practices". :-)
>