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.