LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  January 2007

TEI-L January 2007

Subject:

Re: how to remove numbered divs properly?

From:

Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Sebastian Rahtz <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:20:28 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)

Wendell Piez wrote:
>
> It's more than great. And it's more than just the vocabulary -- it's 
> also this list, plus many other invaluable resources. It's the 
> important 95%. 
yes, fair point. that's why we're all still here.
> That's a very good point: and one of the most important insights of 
> these fifteen years has been that the markup language suitable for a 
> display vocabulary is not (beyond details of syntax that are actually 
> hugely important for tools development) actually much like the markup 
> language suitable for other kinds of processing (esp. search/retrieval 
> and analysis) promised by generic markup. 
ah, that word "promised". you notice it has not arrived yet. how long
has T B-L been banging on about the semantic web? any joy in sight?
>
> I think where we differ is in what kind of expectations we have for 
> standardization at the different layers. My focus is on a language, if 
> you will, that allows great freedom, local expressiveness and variation. I
and that puts you in "category X" of "TEI conformance". not at the top, not
at the bottom, not good, not bad, just "X" to my "Y".
> freedom). Whereas you are in the position of arguing, it seems to me, 
> that where the tradeoff is between local expressiveness and 
> generalized processing, generalized processing should win -- to serve 
> the abstract goal of "interchange".
perhaps thats the goal of "conformance type Y", as opposed to "type X".

problem, of course, is whether the NEH specify "X" or "Y" !
>
> Yet I also believe that my view of it is more in keeping with the 
> Poughkeepsie goals of 1987 than yours.
Yeah, maybe.  Maybe the founding fathers were wrong, though :-{
> Where we differ is most of all in the rhetorical stress we attach to ODD.
I'm just offering ODD as a way of specifying the state of conformance to 
type Y.
If you live in type X conformance, you don't need ODD.

>
> Indeed. It kind of lost me. Analogies aside, ODD (or its current 
> implementation, as you prefer) breaks when an expert user tries to 
> drop numbered divs from his model (a simple, straightforward and 
> easily defensible requirement) and generate a DTD -- but this expert 
> user is not allowed to say "okay, I'll write my rules without ODD" and 
> remain in conformance. There's a problem there.
Yes. It's a bug. Suppose it was a Java program you were writing,
and the legal construct caused a crash in JDK 1.5. What do you do? either
a) rewrite your code to avoid it; b) report the bug and wait for 1.6 fix it.
You don't stop writing in Java.
> I'm really saying nothing more than that I suspect this is a 
> significant indicator that an escape clause allowing for conformance 
> without an ODD needs to be entertained ... 
ah, type Z conformance :-}

....
>
> It depends on whether you are allowed to relax your RelaxNG 
> constraints. If by "convert" you mean "express the same or somewhat 
> looser models" the answer is, you always can. If you mean "express the 
> same models", you can't.
ok. this is a big issue for the TEI, whether it mandates equal status 
for DTD, RELAXNG
and W3C Schema.
>
> But the requirement to drop numbered divs from the model -- Ron's case 
> -- doesn't fall into this category. DTDs can express that model just 
> fine, and have. Indeed that's exactly what Ron has done outside ODD.
Ron could have done it just fine in ODD! All he had to do was rewrite
the content model for <body>, <front> and <back> in his ODD. No problemo.
It's just a  terrible drag for him to do so.
>
> A further irony is that allowing div0, div1 and div2 etc. at all in 
> P5, alongside unnumbered divs with exactly equivalent tagging 
> semantics, while  simultaneously urging conformity of tagging practice 
> in the name of standardizing an application profile, is in itself a 
> concession to local idiosyncracy that boggles the mind.

well, yes. its a dreadful example to argue over. the whole idea is silly,
and the implementation in the TEI sources is a royal pain. the content
model of <body> is probably the most evil bit of code in there
(I bet Syd has other contenders!).

My own preference is to allow div | divN indiscriminately (ie anything from
a model.divLike class) and add common sense constraints in prose and
Schematron. We can still keep the equally contentious "tesselated divs" 
thing.


BTW I do agree that you and I are only hair splits apart on most of this
stuff

Sebastian

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager