Re: [tei-council] modest proposal for simplifying procmod

Dear Lou and Magdalena, I think I'm with Syd in wondering why it matters to move the content into an attribute. It seems to work just as well either to hold XPath content as element or attribute content, so I am not sure putting it into an attribute value is necessarily better. Magdalena's question interests me as a complicating factor that I'd want to solve with something more than a single XPath line. Maybe <param> isn't the place to set up this level of precision. For this sort of joining that Magdalena describes I tend to apply my own Schematron, which may not be the recommended way to do things...?) Elisa Typeset by hand on my iPad

On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:15 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:

Well, this is a different question from the one I asked : the current definition says that you have to supply an XPath. If you can write an XPath that does what you want, you're OK, if not, not.

I just want to know whether you agree that supplying the XPath as an attribute value is better than supplying it as content!

...

On 22/01/16 13:06, Magdalena Turska wrote: I need some time to put it in words (at least coherent ones), but I have a bad feeling about this. Case to ponder: how to express that content for a model should be pulled from some other location matching id of the processed element, so effectively how to do joins.

<TEI> ... <persName ref="PId123"> ... </TEI>

intended model

<model behaviour="note"> <param name="content">doc("persons.xml")//person[@xml:id=***@ref***]</param> </model>

except that I cannot say @ref here, because I mean @ref of persName being processed. Is there any XPath magic to say it? Or would we need some other mechanism to accommodate such jobs?

Puzzled,

Magdalena

On 22 January 2016 at 12:33, Lou Burnard wrote:

...

The <param> element currently declares its content to be "macro.xpath" -- i.e. it can contain only an XPath.

It would be a lot easier to enforce this constraint if the content were supplied as an attribute, e.g. "value"

so, eg, instead of

<param name="foo">@bar</param> <param name="default">corr</param> <param name="lang">ancestor::*/@xml:lang</param> <param name="place">'foot'</param>

I suggest

<param name="foo" value="@bar"/> <param name="default" value="corr"/> <param name="lang" value="ancestor::*/@xml:lang"/> <param name="place" value="'foot'"/>

Anyone got strong feelings against this change? The @place example looks a bit dodgy, but otherwise it seems a fairly benign enhancement. -- 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