Menu
▾
▴
#182 Guidelines Spec pages broken
done
5(medium)
2021-08-18
2021-05-17
No
The element documentation pages, e.g. https://epidoc.stoa.org/gl/latest/ref-origDate.html are a) hideous, and b) incorrect (origDate is not an empty element, for example). I wonder if the generation process isn't properly generating a p5subset.xml document (the thing that aggregates all the prose and element definitions in one place).
It looks to me like the XSLT generating these pages is reading as input only the EpiDoc raw ODD, not the compiled ODD (possibly because there was no compiled odd in our workflow when they were written)> As such, this page only tells you about the EpiDoc customisation of this element, not the whole definition of it.
I agree this is an urgent bug. (The hideousness is less urgent.)
The red title on a brown background may be invisible to color blind readers, though I guess it's immediately repeated, so maybe they're better off...
Haha yes! Also the lack of EpiDoc branding or navigation is a fatal bug. But this should be folded into (or sent as a reminder to) the ticket about EpiDoc GL navigation as a whole, which I think @ellimylonas is looking at…
I will organize an expedition team and go after this bug.
Tom and I have sorted this out, I think. Commit [r2807] points at the compiled ODD instead of the plain one and so should pull in all the necessary info.
Related
Commit: [r2807]
Excellent! Could you do a test run of the GLs and post to /dev/ so we can see how urgent other fixes to those pages (and/or the ODD) might be?
It's now up on /dev, e.g., https://epidoc.stoa.org/gl/dev/ref-origDate.html
Nice!
That makes it clear, for example, that we need to add our own examples to the ODD, since the
<origDate>example in the TEI ODD is w r o n g .Christ, how did that ever slip through? I’ll fix it on the TEI side. 2 errors in one very small example! But yes, adding our own examples would be nice.
Last edit: BODARD Gabriel 2021-06-21
Two errors?
But yes, I'd also like to include EpiDoc's use of
@precisionin examples such as this, since neither we (nor presumably TEI) would like to think that really means not before -0300-01-01 and not after -0201-12-31…