Simpler respStmt, so that it validates with vanilla tei_odds

[bansp]

This is to show what I meant in issue #11. If this is acceptable, I can modify the pure ODD accordingly and add the newest tei_odds.rnc to this pull request.

[laurentromary]

The point is that the ODD validates against the tei_odds that is in the same directory. I would not hack this now.

Le 30 déc. 2016 à 15:18, Piotr Banski notifications@github.com a écrit :

This is to show what I meant in issue #11 https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/issues/11. If this is acceptable, I can modify the pure ODD accordingly and add the newest tei_odds.rnc to this pull request.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12 https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12 Commit Summary

Simpler respStmt, so that it validates with vanilla tei_odds File Changes

M Specification/standoff-proposal.xml https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12/files#diff-0 (14) Patch Links:

https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12.patch https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12.patch https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12.diff https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12.diff — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE_Q79TKm-F2bpYU2qmBKikhTfPVwjOxks5rNRLAgaJpZM4LYNUw.

Laurent Romary Inria, team Alpage laurent.romary@inria.fr

[bansp]

OK Laurent, but in a production system, I (meaning: a user) definitely don't want an unknown tei_odds sitting in the wrong directory, when I have another tei_odds, which works for my own ODDs, updated and sitting where it should... Just saying.

[laurentromary]

Maybe true, but if it ain’t broke don’t fix it… bitte, bitte.

Le 30 déc. 2016 à 15:51, Piotr Banski notifications@github.com a écrit :

OK Laurent, but in a production system, I (meaning: a user) definitely don't want an unknown tei_odds sitting in the wrong directory, when I have another tei_odds, which works for my own ODDs, updated and sitting where it should... Just saying.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12#issuecomment-269779814, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE_Q76FaMXcYkXc4k4WsHfbnIpouAImiks5rNRp5gaJpZM4LYNUw.

Laurent Romary Inria, team Alpage laurent.romary@inria.fr

[bansp]

You control this, so I won't "break" (=fix) this until you allow the change :-) But the first thing I'm gonna do in my copy is this very simplification, to make your code valid for the current vanilla version of tei_odds... I can't see how this can be considered "breaking" anything -- it doesn't touch your tei_odds, it just simplifies the respStmt. Anyway, thanks for the tip on the *doc.xml file.

[bansp]

I thought that the *doc was just an augmented version of the base ODD, but it also apparently received some manual editing, and some of that went too far: it spoiled your URLs. So I fixed those URLs. This is a safe fix...

I was intrigued by seeing <attList/> in the elementSpec for listAnnotation -- was that also a manual change that had to be done for some reason? I would like to augment my own ODD, rather than use this one, so that's why I'm asking. Thanks!

[laurentromary]

No. Th doc is automatically generated (on Roma). I suggest you do not overdo on the various files before you actually make your chaining tests. In particular, the doc does work and I would not want to see it stop working. So don’t fix it manually. Please.

If you want we can have a call so that I explain.

Le 31 déc. 2016 à 04:01, Piotr Banski notifications@github.com a écrit :

I thought that the *doc was just an augmented version of the base ODD, but it also apparently received some manual editing, and some of that went too far: it spoiled your URLs. So I fixed those URLs. This is a safe fix...

I was intrigued by seeing in the elementSpec for listAnnotation -- was that also a manual change that had to be done for some reason? I would like to augment my own ODD, rather than use this one, so that's why I'm asking. Thanks!

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/laurentromary/stdfSpec/pull/12#issuecomment-269845611, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE_Q7-JHjUdpTypYejYBYLkvUrR0xtRvks5rNcVwgaJpZM4LYNUw.

Laurent Romary Inria, team Alpage laurent.romary@inria.fr

[bansp]

Yup, it should be done automatically, and mine is, and that's how I knew, by diff, that yours was either touched manually (with sed maybe), or was derived on the basis of a seriously broken p5subset (so yeah, it was more likely that the Guidelines were at some point broken with sed, and you were using a broken p5subset, I give you that). Other than that, rest easy, I'm done here and will be working with my own (non-broken) versions. Happy new year!