Well, OK, but in that case, the exemplar text needs some attention as well. For example, it currently includes a paragraph <p>Note that if (as in the last example above) no value is given for the <att>columns</att> attribute, the assumption is that there is a single column of writing on each page. The preceding example has been changed to specify a value for the @columns attribute, so that the comment quoted above is doubly confusing. I guess this is a corrigible error, so I'll corridge it. On 04/08/15 22:11, Martin Holmes wrote:
We are the maintainers of the ENRICH schema, surely? Otherwise it shouldn't be in our Exemplars at all. So I would vote for fixing bad decisions in their ODD, or alternatively giving their ODD back to them for maintenance. I don't believe we should change our sensible schematron rules in order to grandfather someone else's bad decision.
Cheers, Martin
On 15-08-04 01:14 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
I think their thinking was that if the attribute is not supplied, it should be assumed to take the default value, but that if the default value was not appropriate then an attribute must be supplied. Muddled, I agree, but that's not really the point here. Making it generate a warning rather than an error would be highly desirable.
On 04/08/15 21:05, Syd Bauman wrote:
Inasmuch as there is such a thing as a "warning" in Schematron, we can certainly change the constraint (to use flag="warning"). But how on earth does it make sense to specify a default value (i.e., the value to assume when the attribute is not there) on a required attribute (i.e., one that will always be there)?
Well, Mr Smartypants Schematron, it may not make sense to you, but it did to the folks who defined this ODD, and making their ODD invalid is not going to win you any friends. Could we at least change this to a warning, so that the P5 test suite can run to completion?