Re: [tei-council] [romajs] macroSpec[@type='dt'] vs dataSpec

I think agree with Syd on these issues. Also 3a I would not list datatypes created with macroSpec, and with 3b agree that RomaJS should only handle new pure ODD and thus dataSpec/dataRef. I'd be perfectly happy for when I try to load an ODD into RomaJS that it complain and say the ODD uses old ways of doing things (such as RelaxNG, macroSpec for datatypes, etc.) and say those need to be fixed first or something. There have got to only be a limited number of things that are fairly straightforward to test for, right? Best wishes, James -- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@newcastle.ac.uk School of English Literature, Language, and Linguistics, Newcastle University ________________________________ From: tei-council-bounces@lists.tei-c.org on behalf of Syd Bauman Sent: 08 February 2018 00:04:16 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org Subject: Re: [tei-council] [romajs] macroSpec[@type='dt'] vs dataSpec Fast thoughts: 1. Yup. 2. Partially: <dataSpec> is (correctly) used for 'teidata.*' datatypes <macroSpec> is used (under depricatoin) for 'data.*' datatypes -- they expire in October <macroSpec> is used for 'macro.*' macros. (Should that be done w/ <dataSpec>? Idunno off top of head.) 3a. I disagree. When dealing w/ <macroRef>, I say consider only <macroSpec>s with type="pe". 3b. Yes, new Roma should not be able to handle existing ODDs that use <macroRef> to point to 'data.*' datatypes, thus forcing users to switch. (Which is good, as they will *have* to switch in 8 months, anyway.)

I'm facing a bit of a conundrum related to datatypes and RomaJS and need your input. I'll try my best to explain it.

1. Currently, there are two ways of defining datatypes in ODD: macroSpec[@type='dt'] and dataSpec. Is macroSpec[@type='dt'] going to be deprecated, or are both systems going to be viable?

2. The TEI source, and therefore p5subset.xml currently defines datatypes BOTH with macroSpec[@type='dt'] (e.g. data.certainty) and dataSpec (e.g. teidata.certainty). Why? Is one going to go away eventually?

3. What should Roma do? This is a multifaceted problem, but let's focus on elementSpec/content for now since this is what I'm dealing with at the moment.

3a: when creating/editing a macroRef, Roma will list all macroSpecs for the @key value, including those with @type='dt'. I'm inclined to keep this, because likely people who created new datatypes (which does happen) have done so with macroSpec[@type='dt'] for a while before dataSpec (and after).

3b: a p5subset specific issue: unless the macroSpec/dataSpec duplicates are not fixed, users will see them both show up. I don't think this is good: new ODDs should use dataSpec/dataRef, right? But at the same time I don't want Roma to not be able to handle existing ODDs with macroRefs to datatypes. -- 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