No, I guess that we do not really need allPlus. I was just looking for a schema which includes the modules that are needed in our project (core, header, linking, namesdates, textstructure). allPlus just sounded like a safe bet because the name seems to suggest that it contains all the modules. But I noticed that the validation takes really long, and, indeed, that there are some problems because of the mixed namespaces.
If you could suggest another URL for a schema that includes the modules that I mentioned, that would be great.
From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sebastian Rahtz
Sent: donderdag 26 augustus 2010 10:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: DTD > Schema
On 26 Aug 2010, at 08:30, Verhaar, P.A.F. wrote:
> The question
> is more if it is possible to refer to a canonical schema (a schema
> maintained at the tei-c.org website) in the first place.
yes, it should be. if thats broken, I shall look to fix immediately.
obviously you can't do the in-document modularisation thing with W3C like you can with DTD
> I have found a number of W3C schemas at
> http://www.tei-c.org/release/xml/tei/custom/schema/xsd/. Nevertheless,
> when I try to validate one of our TEI documents using the
> "tei_allPlus.xsd" schema, for instance, this produces various kinds of
> errors in TEI, which appear to concern the schema rather than our TEI
do you really need allPlus? that mixed namespace scheme is pretty flaky in XSD
(acting) Information and Support Group Manager Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente