On 11/12/12 10:37, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>> What does a schema have to do with it? The purpose of the <quotation> element is not to help a validater -- by the time you get to processing this element it's too late! Its purpose is primarily to document how the (valid) markup should be interpreted, i.e. whether or not the absence of quote marks in the encoding implies that they were also missing from the source. What you do with that information is up to your processor: both situations are valid.
> yes but no but yes but no. I suspect that when you designed that <defaultVal> element back in the day, you had in mind
> the facility of SGML to carry a default through to the DTD, and for the DTD processor to insert that into the
> stream of markup presented to the processor. RELAX NG broke this connection between
> validation and processing, which muddies the waters. the presence of defaultVal means that
> processing _with_ a DTD gives different results from without - not good.
Your suspicions may be correct, but surely we never claimed that DTD
processing and RelaxNG validation would always give identical
behaviours? I agree there's a good case for not using <defaultVal> at
all in our ODD specifications, just as we don't use some features of
RelaxNG because we can't implement them in DTD. Of course when ODD
content models are expressed solely in TEI XML all such problems will go
>>> so how can I implement it? And what if <quotation> is NOT present? what is the default then?
>> If the <quotation> element is missing then the encoder has chosen, for whatever reason, not to tell you about their practice in this respect. So you're at liberty to decide for yourself what to do about it.
> but if she had said
> <p>quotation marks have not been preserved</p>
> I'd be in a Pickle :-}
Indeed so, but you can't legislate for such cases.