Hi Lou, On 15-06-09 07:24 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
On 08/06/15 21:41, Martin Holmes wrote:
On 15-06-08 01:15 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
If we are to abide by Martin's eminently suggestion
You cunningly left the adjective for the reader to supply there, but I don't think we have any option here, do we?
the word i failed to type was, of course, "sensible"
We have to deprecate anything we're going to remove for a period of two years, as Syd reminded me recently wrt the defaultVals.
of permitting the new pure odd dataRef to coexist with the current <dataype> mechanism, I can't see any way out of doing the following
I don't think I was suggesting that <datatype> and <dataRef> both be available in a Pure ODD structure, was I? I think I would have meant that the old mechanisms will have to continue to be supported almost indefinitely, but within Pure ODD structures it would be better to use only Pure ODD elements
Not entirely sure what a "pure ODD structure" is, tbh,
You're right, that's not really a meaningful concept. I was vaguely (as usual) thinking that there are Pure ODD ways of doing things and old ways of doing things and they're absolutely distinct, but of course they share most of their elements and have to coexist.
but clearly there's no reason for "pure odd" to continue to support legacy ways of doing things. Or we will never make any progress. And note that going over to using pure odd isn't going to affect the 95% of the TEI community which does not write its own ODDs.
I'm hoping it might reduce that 95% to 80%, eventually.
. [...]
c) the current section 1.4.2 on datatype macros (#DTYPES, in #ST) will also need to be cloned, or substantially revised, since this is where the pesky things are actually defined
The chapter prose would have to be expanded anyway, wouldn't it? it
Or contracted. Don't forget there are two sections concerned: one where we talk about the ODD elements (#TD) and one where we actually say what datatypes the TEI provides (#DTYPES). I'm trying (but failing) to avoid having to double the size of the latter. For a moment I even toyed with the idea of abandoning those TEI dataypes which map directly onto an existing W3C schema datatype, since we can use dataRef to point specifically to the latter. But my better self wouldn't let me.
I see what you mean. But you must introduce me to this better self. :-) Cheers, Martin