search

TEIC / TEI

The Text Encoding Initiative Guidelines
https://www.tei-c.org
Other
269 stars 88 forks source link

Prose and elementSpec in contradiction #2456

Closed martindholmes closed 8 months ago

martindholmes commented 10 months ago

The Dictionaries chapter says this:

"the re element is defined to contain the same elements as an entry element, with the exception that it may not contain any nested re elements." https://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/4.6.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/DI.html#DITPRE

But the schema allows nested re elements.

laurentromary commented 10 months ago

In the context of TEI lex 0, we are not using <re> anymore but only the (now) recursive <entry>. We probably need to align <re> in documenting that it can be recursive indeed.

sydb commented 10 months ago

Given that <entry> is recursive, is <re> needed at all anymore; i.e., is it just syntactic sugar for <entry type="related">? (It would mean allowing <entry> in the content models of <cit>, <dictScrap>, <entryFree>, and <nym>, which currently allow <superEntry> and <re>, but not <entry>.

laurentromary commented 10 months ago

there is quite some legacy usage of <re> and I would not drop it too quickly. But yes, step by step the TEI guidelines could align with TEI Lex 0 and recommend the systematic usage of (which for us also replaces <superEntry>). BTW, we use type="relatedEntry".

sydb commented 10 months ago

So my suggested steps are:

  1. On this ticket we just fix the prose in #DITPRE, and do nothing else
  2. Open a new ticket to depricate then remove <re>, with the suggestion that the value "relatedEntry" be used on <entry>. (@laurentromary suggests the deprecation period should be a long one, and I see no reason to try to make it short)
  3. Open a new ticket to consider depricating <superEntry>, too.
trishaoconnor commented 8 months ago