fd-dictionaries
fd-dictionaries copied to clipboard
freedict
modify the ODD to allow for multiple refs
Just a note for now: it's a rather bad idea to edit the .rng directly, because it's regenerated after each change of the ODD. So when our schema is tightened, there will be a new .rng.
So we simply need a new ODD, more relaxed in this respect.
On 29/11/17 22:16, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/freedict/fd-dictionaries Commit: d922e508176cbfe6d38ddb1b33dfa51a8e97c13b https://github.com/freedict/fd-dictionaries/commit/d922e508176cbfe6d38ddb1b33dfa51a8e97c13b Author: Sebastian Humenda Date: 2017-11-29 (Wed, 29 Nov 2017)
Changed paths: M shared/freedict-P5.rng
Log Message:
freedict-P5.rng: allow multi-licencing
Previously, a licence reference (
<ref target…>) was mandatory, but did not allow multiple licences.
Could we add a message like "This file is autogenerated using the command ..." to the top? This might prevent more cases of manual editing.
That's what the ticket is for :-) Posted it because I know I won't be able to act on this immediately. But if your question meant that you want to do that, please go ahead.
Oooooops. I have only now seen red lights flashing: what exactly is the expected behaviour here, please? What is not sufficient so that the schema should be modified? I only now realised that these should be my initial questions.
May I please see a snippet of XML that expresses the desired information and at the same time is not valid? It's struck that there's probably something wrong with that XML rather than the schema, in this case. Let's check that option first. TiA!
Hi again. I've looked at the ODD (gosh, it does need a refresh), and there is no reference to a forced <ref> or anything like that. So let us please have a look at the invalid XML.
Ah, OK, Karl edited the schema directly. OK, so it's really good that this topic came up. Karl: I don't know about the extra message. ODD is a standard part of TEI technology, schemas are never meant to be edited directly. Instead, one requirement for qualifying as valid TEI is that the given XML instance is accompanied by the ODD (because that ODD documents changes against the Guidelines, and is responsible for the resulting schema(s)). I mean, we can have that message, or rather request it, because it would need to be introduced in TEI stylesheets -- but for years, no one has asked, so I am afraid that the request would be a wontfix.
@Piotr I've updated the RNG again. All we want is a machine-readable licencing statement. Karl has implemented ref with the clear text name as content and the licence URL as target. I've added the possibility to have two ref's for dual-licencing.
I do not care exactly how it is implemented, but we ought to find a way how to encode the licence name and ideally the URL in a way that we can verify using a schema of your choice.
I feel embarrassed just looking at our ODD, so I will change it asap. Will add some Schematron for the <ref> -- this way there is going to be an explicit hint when the ref missing.
P5 (now?) has a licence element, which would fit better than <p><ref/></p>. <licence> has an optional target attribute, which we might make a required attribute if ODD allows.
