Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> In developing a TEI customization, I want to constrain the values
> allowed on a type= attribute for a given element by using valList in my
> ODD file. Would this break conformance to the TEI abstract model? It
> seems to me that doing would require me to remove the given element from
> att.typed and then use attDef to add an element called type which
> behaves differently from the type attribute in att.typed. This all
> sounds suspiciously non-conformant to me ...
I don't think this is breaking the TEI abstract model, as long as
the definition of the attribute you are providing is a subset of
allowed values and datatype of the original attribute. The
document would still validate against tei_all, right?
But I don't think you have to do delete it though, you just
change/replace the attribute rather than delete and re-add it. So
<elementSpect ident="bibl" mode="change">
<attDef ident="type" usage="req" mode="change">
<gloss>type is required on bibl in this schema</gloss>
<valList type="closed" mode="replace">
<gloss>A journalistic item</gloss>
Erm, but that is typed out from memory so not tested. (And I'm
not saying that this is a good use of @type on bibl.) Also some
of this might have changed with the newer modifications to ODD.
However, as that is a pure subset of what is allowed inside @type
normally, I don't think this has any effect on Conformance.
Dr James Cummings, Research Technologies Service
OUCS, University of Oxford