Naïve question: why not simply embed `<bibl>` inside `<cell>` (since
that's what seems to be going on)?
On 2015-03-16 17:33, Jonathan Greenberg wrote:
> RILM is using TEI to mark up and publish two kinds of texts: static
> texts that were published sometime in the past and will not be changed
> or updated; and texts that will be updated by their authors from time to
> time via an online XML editor, FontoXML. Some of the material we have
> (in both kinds of texts) has very extensive tables of works,
> performances, or other musical data. The tables are not standardized in
> any way.
> We want these tables to display as tables, but we also want the content
> of the table cells to be marked up when possible.
> In general, entries in works lists that are *not* presented as tables
> are in <bibl> within <list> and <item>. But <cell> does not allow for
> the same child elements as <bibl>.
> The best solution to this in the long term is not to use <table> in
> these cases, but rather to stick with <list> (perhaps with <seg>
> children for otherwise untagged "cells"), and simply have it display as
> a table in the browser. The problem with this solution right now is
> that, in FontoXML, authors updating their content would need to enter
> the correct number of <seg> elements for each <bibl> in the right order,
> even in cases where many of those "cells" are empty. We're using
> FontoXML in great part because it's user-friendly for authors and
> editors who have little technical knowledge, and having to insert all
> these blank <seg>s in the right order would be too much. FontoXML might
> be able to implement some kind of automation here to address this in the
> future, but for now, authors need to be able to edit and add to their
> Thus the need to allow for all of the biblPart contents in <cell>.
> And being hamstrung is not that uncomfortable, by the way. We're very
> happy with the application, even if it can't do everything.
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Lou Burnard
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> I am quite curious as to what leads you to want to do this. Would
> you mind explaining why the current content model is no use?
> You say you're hamstrung by your editing software, which sounds
> On 16/03/15 15:08, Peter Stadler wrote:
> The following ODD snippet should do what you want:
> <elementSpec ident="cell" module="figures" mode="change">
> <rng:zeroOrMore xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/__structure/1.0
> <rng:ref name="model.gLike"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.highlighted"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.pPart.data"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.pPart.edit"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.segLike"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.ptrLike"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.biblPart"/>
> <rng:ref name="model.global"/>
> You can paste it into your schemaSpec replacing/merging with
> your current definition of <cell>.
> If you need further help please feel free to send me your ODD
> file off list.
> Am 16.03.2015 um 15:22 schrieb Jonathan Greenberg
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
> I'm trying to change <cell> so that it can have all of the
> same contents as <bibl>, and I'm not having much luck. (I've
> only decided to do this after thoroughly exploring other
> options, but unfortunately, we're hamstrung because of the
> editing software we are using.) My first attempt, in Roma,
> was to replace the <ref name="macro.specialPara"/> with the
> contents allowed in <bibl>, but that didn't work. I'm afraid
> I'm not too adept at RelaxNG or ODD, but I have been able to
> make this kind of adjustment in the past. Any advice?
> Jonathan Greenberg
> Project Development Coordinator
> Répertoire International de Littérature Musicale (RILM)
> The Graduate Center of The City University of New York
> 365 Fifth Avenue
> New York, NY 10016
> +1 212 817 1988 <tel:%2B1%20212%20817%201988>
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
E: [log in to unmask]