Level 3 Schema and Schematron Feedback: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Tester: Kevin Hawkins: now say to omit entire element defintion |
→Tester: Enter Your Name: what Sebastian sent by email |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* 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 <code><ptr target="#SACR"/></code> , which don't resolver. I recommend omitting all element definitions since creation and maintenance of these is too much for us to undertake. | * 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 <code><ptr target="#SACR"/></code> , which don't resolver. I recommend omitting all element definitions since creation and maintenance of these is too much for us to undertake. | ||
==Tester: | ==Tester: Sebastian Rahtz== | ||
In an email, Sebastian wrote: <code>surely &amp; inside <egXML> is not intended?</code> | |||
==Tester: Enter Your Name== | ==Tester: Enter Your Name== | ||
Revision as of 18:08, 1 May 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.
Tester: Sebastian Rahtz
In an email, Sebastian wrote: surely & inside <egXML> is not intended?
Tester: Enter Your Name
Comments/Feedback
- List feedback, problems encountered, etc. in bulleted list form. Provide detailed examples please so that we may make corrections more easily.
- Feedback
- Feedback