Hi all,

I simultaneously agree that explicitness is good and tend to use xpath-default-namespace all the time myself. I also remember learning from Sebastian that you *always* check namespaces first when something goes wrong. ;-) But since ODDs are always written in TEI (even non-TEI ODDs), it makes sense to me to use default namespace for TEI. I'd vote 4.

Many thanks,

James

Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@newcastle.ac.uk
Senior Lecturer in Late-Medieval Literature and Digital Humanities

School of English, Newcastle University

FWIW, I agree with Raffaele and Peter in preferring the explicitness and clarity of a prefix. Sebastian always used to say that whenever a stylesheet didn't behave as expected, it was a namespace problem.

But if Syd is producing a new version, clearly he has the right to make whatever cosmetic changes he is more comfortable with. Might be a good idea to keep the old version around for a while though, just to check nothing has been broken by such changes, if I may state the obvious.

On 04/01/2019 11:44, Raffaele Viglianti wrote:

I always use prefixes. I think it helps with clarity and feels more rigorous/consistent. So my preference would be 5.

Raff

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019, 5:09 AM Elisa Beshero-Bondar <ebbondar@gmail.com wrote:

By the way, I think there’s a way to do it in pure Schematron, but I am not sure (have to check) if it can be done in the ODD context. If I remember right for pure Schematron at least, the question is whether you have to set the prefix on the Schematron elements or the TEI ones.

Elisa

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 4, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Elisa Beshero-Bondar <ebbondar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having worked with setting default namespaces rather a lot in various contexts (XSLT, XQuery, Schematron, I vote enthusiastically for 1). This really just amounts to a change that reduces verbosity, as Syd indicates, but also reflects the default centrality of the TEI in the Stylesheets anyway. And it is a pain to have to remember the default prefix all the time when we gave to edit.
>
> Elisa
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 4, 2019, at 3:54 AM, Peter Stadler <pstadler@mail.uni-paderborn.de> wrote:
>>
>> I honestly prefer the verbosity of 5) — and I don’t think these XPath expressions can be significantly simplified nor compressed by removing those namespace prefixes.
>> But just to make double sure: This is just a (proposed) cosmetic change due to your personal preference, right? This wouldn’t be bad thing, though, and I think you deserve to do it your way since you are the ODD one :)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Peter
>>
>>> Am 04.01.2019 um 02:18 schrieb Syd Bauman <s.bauman@northeastern.edu>:
>>>
>>> The current odd2odd.xsl (like most of the stylesheets) uses the
>>> explicitly bound namespace prefix "tei:" in XPaths. I am inclined to
>>> use @xpath-default-namespace and get rid of them. I think our XPaths
>>> are often already long enough to wrap around even a wide screen
>>> twice, and things like "ancestor::tei:teiHeader" are just harder to
>>> read.
>>>
>>> Please vote (fast):
>>> 1) I very much want to get rid of the "tei:" prefix in XPaths
>>> 2) I prefer to get rid of them, but don't care much
>>> 3) Makes no difference to me, mate
>>> 4) I prefer to keep them, but don't care much
>>> 5) I very much want to keep the "tei: prefix in XPaths
>>>
>>> In case you're curious, there are approximately
>>> 517 tei:
>>> 38 rng:
>>> 15 xs:
>>> 5 a:
>>> 4 xml:
>>> 2 sch:
>>> prefixes in odd2odd.xsl. (Looking only in attr values.)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tei-council mailing list
>>> Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org
>>> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tei-council mailing list
>> Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org
>> http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
_______________________________________________
Tei-council mailing list
Tei-council@lists.tei-c.org
http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council