Some of the benefits of using the prefixDef/private URI scheme mechanism
- It allows you to use any attribute whose data type is one or more
- It allows you to document in a standard and processable way how such
pointers can be converted into full URIs.
If, as may well be the case, @source also becomes global
(<https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/536>), the first benefit will be
@cRef, by contrast, allows for only a single reference to be encoded in
one instance of the attribute, and is much more restricted in its
However, if you are already well into your project, have documented the
mechanism for resolution of your cRefs properly, and are not feeling the
need for multiple pointers or a wider availability of attributes that
can carry such canonical references, then there's nothing wrong with
sticking to your current practice.
On 2016-06-12 11:29 AM, Paolo Monella wrote:
> I am using @cRef with CITE/CTS URNs to encode that a passage from the
> medieval manuscript I am encoding has a specific passage of Priscian as
> <ref cRef="urn:cts:latinLit:stoa0234a.stoa001:2.53.8-2.53.12"
> Should I switch to the <prefixDef> mechanism too?
> Il 12/06/2016 14:29, Lou Burnard ha scritto:
>> Yes, and no.... it rather depends whether "#vergil-aenide" is a valid
>> URI in your document.
>> Sent from my Honor Mobile
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: cRef usage
>> From: Thierry Pellé
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> short, fast and lousy but useful ! ;-)
>> Hence, if I understand well, I may define
>> <prefixDef ident="cref:"
>> matchPattern="(.+?), (.+?)"
>> Replaces cRef references.
>> and then use
>> <quote ref="cref:Virgile, Enéide">
>> That sounds good.
>> Thank you!
>> Le dimanche 12 juin 2016 à 08:00 -0400, Syd Bauman a écrit :
>>> [Fast-and-lousy response from an airport.]
>>> The @cRef mechanism has essentially been superceded by the
>>> <prefixDef> mechanism, which can be used on any pointer.
>>> > Guidelines specifies that @cRef "specifies the destination of
>>> > the pointer by supplying a canonical reference". I wonder why
>>> > only gloss, ptr, ref, term provide such a canonical forme for a
>>> > pointer. For instance, why is it not possible to specifies the
>>> > @souce attribute of a quote as a canonical pointer?