Hi All, I'm about to merge the msFrag branch and I'm looking at content models. I seem to remember, but can't find in the minutes, that we thought msPart and msFrag were mutually exclusive. I.e., you wouldn't want to use them together. I can *imagine* a scenario in which I might, but I'm thinking that absent a request for it, we should start conservatively and say you can either have 0-∞ msParts of 0-∞ msFrags, but not both. What do you all think?
Hi Hugh, Your recollection is the same as mine. I believe msPart is able to self-nest. Presumably msFrag will self-nest in exclusive alternation with msPart? So we could have an msPart with an msFrag inside it, but no msPart next to it. While a slightly complex restriction I think in general this makes sense, is this how it is currently in the branch? -James On 18/02/16 16:26, Hugh Cayless wrote:
Hi All,
I'm about to merge the msFrag branch and I'm looking at content models. I seem to remember, but can't find in the minutes, that we thought msPart and msFrag were mutually exclusive. I.e., you wouldn't want to use them together. I can *imagine* a scenario in which I might, but I'm thinking that absent a request for it, we should start conservatively and say you can either have 0-∞ msParts of 0-∞ msFrags, but not both. What do you all think?
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
I'm having a bit of trouble imagining what msFrag inside an msPart means.
RIght now, msPart can contain only msPart, and msFrag contains neither. For
my own purposes (inscriptions and papyri), I see no need for nesting at
all, but I know things are much more complex when it comes to codices.
Like I said, I can imagine a case where you'd want to virtually assemble
something that combined a codex with bits of other codices, and maybe then
their sub-parts might be incomplete, but you might be able to find them
elsewhere and so reference them with msFrag. But I think in this scenario
there's no way you wouldn't also want to interleave msPart and msFrag.
Or am I totally misunderstanding you? :-)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:03 PM, James Cummings
Hi Hugh,
Your recollection is the same as mine.
I believe msPart is able to self-nest. Presumably msFrag will self-nest in exclusive alternation with msPart? So we could have an msPart with an msFrag inside it, but no msPart next to it.
While a slightly complex restriction I think in general this makes sense, is this how it is currently in the branch?
-James
On 18/02/16 16:26, Hugh Cayless wrote:
Hi All,
I'm about to merge the msFrag branch and I'm looking at content models. I seem to remember, but can't find in the minutes, that we thought msPart and msFrag were mutually exclusive. I.e., you wouldn't want to use them together. I can *imagine* a scenario in which I might, but I'm thinking that absent a request for it, we should start conservatively and say you can either have 0-∞ msParts of 0-∞ msFrags, but not both. What do you all think?
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
-- 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
I went ahead and merged the msFrag branch. Updates and fixes obviously
welcome.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Hugh Cayless
I'm having a bit of trouble imagining what msFrag inside an msPart means. RIght now, msPart can contain only msPart, and msFrag contains neither. For my own purposes (inscriptions and papyri), I see no need for nesting at all, but I know things are much more complex when it comes to codices.
Like I said, I can imagine a case where you'd want to virtually assemble something that combined a codex with bits of other codices, and maybe then their sub-parts might be incomplete, but you might be able to find them elsewhere and so reference them with msFrag. But I think in this scenario there's no way you wouldn't also want to interleave msPart and msFrag.
Or am I totally misunderstanding you? :-)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:03 PM, James Cummings < James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Hugh,
Your recollection is the same as mine.
I believe msPart is able to self-nest. Presumably msFrag will self-nest in exclusive alternation with msPart? So we could have an msPart with an msFrag inside it, but no msPart next to it.
While a slightly complex restriction I think in general this makes sense, is this how it is currently in the branch?
-James
On 18/02/16 16:26, Hugh Cayless wrote:
Hi All,
I'm about to merge the msFrag branch and I'm looking at content models. I seem to remember, but can't find in the minutes, that we thought msPart and msFrag were mutually exclusive. I.e., you wouldn't want to use them together. I can *imagine* a scenario in which I might, but I'm thinking that absent a request for it, we should start conservatively and say you can either have 0-∞ msParts of 0-∞ msFrags, but not both. What do you all think?
-- Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings@it.ox.ac.uk Academic IT Services, University of Oxford
-- 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
participants (2)
-
Hugh Cayless -
James Cummings