1 and 2 seem pretty non controversial to me, and if the examples indicate otherwise they should be fixed. Less sure that we want to impose any naming restriction on classRef targets -- it's true that @key always selects a TEI-defined widget, and it's true that all TEI-defined classes currently start either "att." or "model." but we might change our mind about that one day. (in which context but entirely irrelevantly how on earth we let the procmod people get away with "model" as the name of an element defeats me) On 07/06/16 15:09, Syd Bauman wrote:

With respect to writing a new, simple, well-behaved, PureODD customization file, are the following correct? If the issues I raise in the footnotes are problems (as I think they are) I will be happy to create issues in GitHub and fix 'em, but I want to make sure they are problems, first.

* macroRef/@key should always refer to a TEI macro, not a TEI datatype (i.e., should start with "macro." not "data." or "teidata.")[1,2]

* dataRef/@key should always refer to a TEI tei-datatype, not a TEI datatype or a macro (i.e., should start with "teidata.")[3]

* classRef/@key should always refer to a class, i.e. should start with "att." or "model."

Notes ----- [1] In which case the only example of a <macroRef> in the Guidelines is problematic, as its @key is "data.text". [2] We use macroRef/@key that starts with "data." 3 times in the Guidelines. [3] In which case the 1st example of <dataRef> in the tagdoc, while not incorrect (it refers to 1.5.1), is a bit disingenuous.