Difference between revisions of "Level 1 Schema and Schematron Feedback"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Tester: Kevin Hawkins: what to do about elementSpec rendering) |
(removed unused templates for feedback) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
In an email, Sebastian wrote: <code>surely &amp; inside <egXML> is not intended?</code> | In an email, Sebastian wrote: <code>surely &amp; inside <egXML> is not intended?</code> | ||
| − | + | : fixed by Syd; not yet committed to GitHub ([[User:Kshawkin|Kshawkin]] 10:12, 5 July 2011 (EDT)) | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 16:12, 5 July 2011
>>Return to testing instructions: Feedback_on_the_Best_Practices_for_TEI_in_Libraries_ODD_Documentation_and_Schemas
Tester: Kevin Hawkins
- Most <elementSpec>s have examples that are taken exactly from P5 but do not validate according to the ODD itself. Furthermore, definitions sometimes refer to sections of P5 with pointers such as
<ptr target="#SACR"/>, which don't resolver. I recommend omitting all element definitions since creation and maintenance of these is too much for us to undertake.
- Later, Syd will change XSLT so that it omits exemplum elements from output. Some day in the future, we will figure out a mechanism that allows us to supply our own examples not in P5 for use of particular elemens. The output will include only our examples and none of those in P5. (Kshawkin 10:05, 5 July 2011 (EDT))
Tester: Sebastian Rahtz
In an email, Sebastian wrote: surely & inside <egXML> is not intended?
- fixed by Syd; not yet committed to GitHub (Kshawkin 10:12, 5 July 2011 (EDT))
