I expect that would work, yeah. I think what you really want though is to
be able to pull a moduleRef off a different @source. What if we let you use
@source on moduleRef as well?
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Lou Burnard
Yes, that does seem to be the problem (James is saying the same thing in another window).
It doesn't seem unreasonable to want to start from an existing ODD and then add some more declarations or modules to it. An ODD processor has to be able to reconcile multiple spec elements anyway. I wonder if it would work if I just copied the specs from the tagdocs module into my new ODD?
On 07/10/16 17:22, Hugh Cayless wrote:
My guess would be this is because tei_bare doesn't include tagdocs. So you're referencing a module that doesn't exist, as far as it's concerned?
If this is how it works, then you can only ever subset chained ODDs, not restore already-filtered stuff, which means it would actually be unusable for my own current purpose—basing a critical editions ODD on EpiDoc, because we want to put back some stuff EpiDoc removes. That's kind of a bummer. Maybe we need to think about how we'd want chaining to work, and then figure out how to make that happen instead?
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Lou Burnard < lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
I am having trouble getting odd chaining to work at all.
Can anyone explain to me why the following doesn't do what I expect?
<schemaSpec ident="ODDauthoring" source="tei_bare.subset.xml" > <moduleRef key="tagdocs"/> </schemaSpec>
(The file tei_bare.subset.xml is one I produced by running the published ODD for tei_bare through teitoodd)
In my mind, this ought to give me a schema which contains the same as tei_bare plus the elements defined in the tagdocs module. In fact it gives me a schema with no elements at all.
I must be missing something obvious. Maybe someone could send me an example of an ODD chaining which does work?
On 06/10/16 16:37, Hugh Cayless wrote:
I was playing around last night with chaining ODDs and thinking we needed
better documentation for them, so this is a nice start. One thing that tripped me up last night is that it isn't clear that @source has to point at a *compiled* ODD, so you can't just point at the latest EpiDoc ODD, for example, you have to run it through teitoodd first. I can see why that's so, but wonder if there's any way around it...
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Lou Burnard < lou.burnard@retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
On my way home from Vienna I started drafting a little homily about how to
update your old ODD to a pure new shiny one. The source is in github under TEI/Documentation/pureODD/purifyDoc.xml
CETEICEAN renders it reasonably well (modulo a couple of gotchas on which I've posted issues) at http://teic.github.io/TCW/purifyDoc.html, but the nicest reading version is at http://teic.github.io/TCW/puri fyDoc_static.html
I'd very much welcome Council's comments before exposing it further. Seems to me we need to promote ODD a bit more, and this might be a good start. I'm also working on an "ODD for beginners" guide, but this one is aimed at old lags who made an ODD back in the day and are interested in getting up to speed with its new possibilities. So much so (I now realise) that I've completely forgotten to mention the existence of Roma in it. But I'll stop tweaking for now anent your comments...
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived