On 09/06/15 16:06, Syd Bauman wrote:
I'm confused, probably because I missed some part of important discussion. So apologies in advance, but it sounds like you're talking about having datatypes in the TEI Guidelines defined by both <datatype> and <dataSpec> simultaneously. This seems like overkill to me. While we are careful not to break backwards compatibility for TEI *users* w/o good reason and deprecation, we are all but outright hostile to TEI *customizers*, frequently changing classes out from under them w/o warning.
Um, I think we have done that precisely once, so far. Is that really very hostile ?
Personally, my first reaction is that a (6-month) warning is a good idea, but otherwise we should go ahead and change our <datatype>s to <dataSpec>s. (Unless I'm missing something, here?)
I think you may be.
BTW, is there a reason <datatype minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="3"> <rng:ref name="data.count"/> </datatype> should stop working when 'data.count' is defined by a <dataSpec> rather than a <macroSpec>? I had thought it would continue to work.
"data.count" is never going to be defined by a <dataSpec>. The proposal is to use a different name e.g. "teidata.count".