search

SAA-SDT / eas-schemas

Where TS-EAS manages EAD, EAC-CPF, and any other schemas published by the subcommittee.
0 stars 0 forks source link

Introduce a new <formattingExtension> element as a choice next to <p> to group current formatting elements #62

Closed kerstarno closed 3 months ago

kerstarno commented 7 months ago

Creator of issue

  1. Kerstin Arnold
  2. TS-EAS EAD team lead
  3. @kerstarno
  4. kerstin.arnold@archivesportaleurope.net

The issue relates to

Wanted change/feature

Note for working on and testing this issue: When the schema changes are done in development branch, please mark this by ticking the box for the higher level in the list (printed in bold); once the changes have been tested successfully please mark this by ticking the box on the lower and intermediate (printed in italics) levels.

For changes to <legalStatus> see #5. For changes regarding <footnote> see #63.

fordmadox commented 6 months ago

Just a note that I still need to work on this. I'm unclear if we're going to try to validate a subset of XHTML, or just treat this element like objectXMLWrap in a specific namespace?

kerstarno commented 6 months ago

Just a note that I still need to work on this. I'm unclear if we're going to try to validate a subset of XHTML, or just treat this element like objectXMLWrap in a specific namespace?

Ideally, we would want to validate a subset of XHTML included in <formattingExtension>, i.e. the element should require a reference to the XHTML namespace as e.g. <dao> used to in EAD 2002 when used with XLink attributes.

kerstarno commented 6 months ago

For a high-level conversion route (details will follow at a later stage) of the current block elements in EAD3:

kerstarno commented 6 months ago

@marieelia - Adding you for information at the moment as this change might then also be applied to EAC-CPF at a later stage. I've currently categorised this as a major revision item.

fordmadox commented 5 months ago

@kerstarno : will this element also appear in descriptiveNote and (the element previously known as) didNote? Or, as I suspect, are those holdover note fields the exclusive domain of EAS description rather than HTML extension?

fordmadox commented 5 months ago

Also note that I'm not yet forcing an HTML namespace declaration, but any elements in that namespace can currently be utilized here.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

@kerstarno : will this element also appear in descriptiveNote and (the element previously known as) didNote? Or, as I suspect, are those holdover note fields the exclusive domain of EAS description rather than HTML extension?

No, indeed, <descriptiveNote> and <identificationDataNote> remain just with <p>.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

Tested with the XSD and the RNG.

All of the above changes have been implemented as expected apart from <descriptionOfComponents>, which is currently missing the choice between <formattingExtension> and <p>. I have created a pull request for this (#80) also including the changes for #63. Once the pull request has been merged, this issue will need retesting.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

With regard to XHTML in <formattingExtension>, I can confirm that I can use any elements in <formattingExtension> and that the XHTML namespace declaration is currently not forced. In testing I created the following example using the selection of elements mentioned above:

<biogHist>
   <formattingExtension xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
      <xhtml:h1></xhtml:h1>
      <xhtml:h2></xhtml:h2>
      <xhtml:h3></xhtml:h3>
      <xhtml:dl></xhtml:dl>
      <xhtml:ul></xhtml:ul>
      <xhtml:ol></xhtml:ol>
      <xhtml:table></xhtml:table>
      <xhtml:p></xhtml:p>
      <xhtml:blockquote></xhtml:blockquote>
      <xhtml:div></xhtml:div>
   </formattingExtension>
</biogHist>

In the test file validating against the XSD, Oxygen does not suggest any sub-elements, e.g. for the lists or the table element, neither from XHTML, nor EAD. In the test file validating against the RNG, however, Oxygen suggests EAD elements as possible sub-elements of the XHTML elements.

The latter case should definitely be avoided, so a stricter binding to the XHTML namespace might be required here.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

Additionally, and apologies that I am only realising now that this was not specified before: <formattingExtension> should not be repeatable. I.e. there'd be the choice between either a single <formattingExtension> (within which all XHTML elements could then be repeated) or a repeatable <p> element. I added this to the pull request (#80).

fordmadox commented 5 months ago

Regarding the above example, the "formattingExtension" element itself would still need to be in the EAD4 / EAS (if we converge to one namespace, which I think we can) namespace. Alternatively a custom element by that name could be defined for HTML, but I don't know how that would work with how we currently manage our tag library, etc.

Anyhow, I'm going to keep the "Needs More Work" label on this issue for the time being while we work out the validation process for this extension.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

Regarding the above example, the "formattingExtension" element itself would still need to be in the EAD4 / EAS (if we converge to one namespace, which I think we can) namespace. Alternatively a custom element by that name could be defined for HTML, but I don't know how that would work with how we currently manage our tag library, etc.

Anyhow, I'm going to keep the "Needs More Work" label on this issue for the time being while we work out the validation process for this extension.

Ah, yes, true. My mistake - misread and misadapted the encoding used for <objectXMLWrap> in the EAC-CPF 2.0 TL... Thanks for the clarification.

kerstarno commented 5 months ago

As an interim test report: the choice between <formattingExtension> and <p> is now also available in <descriptionOfComponents> in both, the XSD and the RNG.

However, there's now a difference between the two schema versions:

fordmadox commented 3 months ago

Note: I've updated this as ready for testing due to updates for the XHTML embedding features being supported now, but I haven't yet the availability issue noted above. I'll keep this issue with labels of both 'ready for testing' and 'needs more work' to cover both features.

fordmadox commented 3 months ago

Note: I've pushed a quick fix of the RNG + XSD difference regarding the availability of this element within the former dsc and related elements. Should be good to test again.

Another note: See issue #100. I think there is another issue with the RNG / NVDL combo. Won't have time to investigate until after the call for comments goes out, so just an FYI (and why we'll continue to hit the XSD version of the schema in the NVDL file).

kerstarno commented 3 months ago

Retested with XSD and RNG and can confirm, that an choice between <formattingExtension> and <p> is now available with <descriptionOfComponents> and elements such as <scopeContent>, <biogHist> etc. Both elements are optional, <p> can be repeated, <formattingExtension> cannot be repeated.

The only context in which <formattingExtension> is (correctly) repeatable is <findAidDesc>.

For validation against the XHTML namespace see the NVDL file under https://github.com/SAA-SDT/eas-schemas/tree/development/xml-schemas/ead