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

I honestly don't think it would cause any less turmoil to abandon the use of data.xpath here as an attribute value than as element content. Either way it's a fairly major change. But in any case, I'm not planning to change anything in the current proposal for the moment (unless it's demonstrably broken) -- just striving to understand it! While I agree that the use case you identify here is pretty important, there's absolutely nothing in the current proposal to suggest that it has been considered hitherto. So it's definitely in the "desirable enhancement" pile. On 22/01/16 13:32, Magdalena Turska wrote:

I know, but this is a class of applications (like displaying biographical note for a person) that is very common and actually crucial, so not accommodating such needs throws a significant portion of projects out of the window. I'd thus either postpone decision if possible, or, rather leave it as it is - in the content of an element, not an attribute as it would cause less turmoil if in the future we need to extend possible contents beyond XPath.

On 22 January 2016 at 13:19, Lou Burnard wrote:

...

Do we really want to start inventing new syntax here? That's quite a big change...

On 22/01/16 13:17, Magdalena Turska wrote:

...

It is a different question, but relevant one. If XPath doesn't cut it, we need more elaborate content model for param, with some mechanism to accommodate variables and then we need markup inside param, so attribute will not be enough.

On 22 January 2016 at 13:15, 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

-- 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