Torsten Schassan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> first of all I wish a happy new year and the best for everybody listening.
> Then, a colleague (Thomas Stäcker) pointed me to something which I
> should/could have recognized before: The definition of <ptr> states,
> that the status of @target is required while at the same time the note
> says that @target and @cRef are mutually exclusive. The combination of
> both makes @cRef a kind of superfluous. Can someone explain the
> situation or is it just a mistake?
Interesting. I don't think the problem is as simple as a typo, though it can be
solved by changing the <attDef ident="target" usage="req"> to 'opt'. The point
with making them mutually exclusive, I believe is to say that either you are
using canonical referencing, or W3C URI/XPointer style of referencing.
I mean, what would it mean if they were not mutually exclusive? You could then,
optionally, have both and how should that be interpreted?
<ptr cRef="John10:13" target="john.xml#b10v13"/>
If you came across a ptr with one of these it is obvious what to do.... what
does one do if you come across a ptr with both? Which one does one evaluate? Do
you have a choice? Or both meant point to the same thing? Does one refer to its
I'd say the easiest (and backwards compatible thing) to do is simply make target
optional on ptr and change the remark to say not only that they are mutually
exclusive but that at minimum one is required. But I'd be interested in hearing
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford
James dot Cummings at oucs dot ox dot ac dot uk