Wendell Piez wrote:
> As I've said before, I thought the P3/P4 definition had the balance
> just about right. It pointed to validation against a DTD and defined
> ways in which a custom DTD could vary while remaining in conformance,
> while not relying on exclusively automated mechanisms. It was not a
> cookie-cutter approach, but instead held projects to a high standard.
> Conformance meant not simply formal validation as such, but
> intellectual rigor, demonstrated through documentation and explicit
> rationales that showed how and why modeling decisions were made and
That's a consistent standpoint. I disagree fairly strongly, though. I think
that P3/P4 provided a test for conformance which made the user feel good,
but did little to make their documents useable by others. But that
brings us full circle to the long debate we all had a few months back.
> Ah, so you agree with me then. So, if a project has no ODD but can
> justify their means and methods, they can yet be blessed? Will the
> peer group be willing to acknowledge that ODD implementations are no
> better as final arbiters than the schemas they define, and that indeed
> there might be a category (albeit narrow) of TEI that may (now or in
> future) have good reasons to use other mechanisms?
Of course. But this isn't self-blessing. As the TEI project stands at
we have a formally elected peer group (viz the Technical Council of TEIC)
which makes judgements. It's a plausible compromise way of deciding
what "peer acceptance" is, I suppose. If they say _at present_ "thou
shalt use ODD, Wendell", then I'd argue you cannot strike out on your
own and say "this is what
I do and it is TEI cos I say so" - you have to use your considerable
to persuade that group of peer judges to go other ways as well. As
are quite rightly doing in the forum of TEI-L.
> This is highly relevant. Ron demonstrated that he could make a legal
> modification that would not pass conformant XML DTD parsers due to
> ambiguous content models. Lou argued that this problem comes with the
> territory, implying that there is really no good fix.
What Ron did was a legal modification, and a proper implementation
of ODD would have generated a legal DTD from it, as it generated
a legal RELAXNG schema. What many people forget to take into account
is that the current tool set (the XSLT transformations behind Roma) may
(and demonstrably does!) have bugs. So to say "but he has no ODD
mechanism for defining the correct schema" is not correct. It _is_ true
to say that as
of today Ron has no way of actually using his legal modification to make
a legal DTD. That's the situation which can be remedied by someone with some
XML-processing smarts who can write a 100% bugfree ODD processor.
 oh, you want the precise spec of processing model? er um well,
just read the code, Luke....