[osis-core] Milestone proposal

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Yes, the proposal is to change the milestone syntax for tagging:
<verse osisID="John.1.1">In the beginning...</verse>

FROM:
<milestoneStart type="verse" end="X" osisID="John.1.1"/>In the 
beginning...<milestoneEnd type="verse" start="X"/>

TO:

<verse osisID="John.1.1" mID="X"/>In the beginning...<verse mID="X"/>


Todd brought up a good point before we left that we should discuss.
He pointed out that if we have an excerpt of an OSIS doc that contains 
the ending milestone, we won't be able to tell that it is an end 
milestone, as opposed to a start milestone.

I agreed with him in Dallas, but have thought about it and I'm not sure now.

If, indeed, milestone 'containers' should be treated exactly like real 
XML containers, then the proposed problem case should be illegal anyway. 
  So, I'm not sure.  I don't mind either, really.  Todd's proposed 
change would look something like:

<verse osisID="John.1.1" mB="X"/>In the beginning...<verse mE="X"/>



Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Greetings!
> 
> Thanks to everyone for a very successful meeting!
> 
> One of the more significant developments was a new milestone proposal 
> from Troy. Basically it says that rather than duplicate the attributes 
> of other elements, such as the who of quotes, we should allow elements 
> to be written as empty elements and require an attribute that carry the 
> semantic "this is a milestone" and links it to its milestone partner. 
> Note that begining and ending milestones are determined by order in the 
> document stream.
> 
> I will be working on the schema this week and the only possible problem 
> may be that we have elements that have required content (read other 
> elements) which would result in not being able to use this mechanism 
> with those elements. I will check more carefully this week and would 
> suggest that if such exist, we may be able to lossen the content models 
> to make content optional so that the mechanism proposed by Troy will 
> work quite seamlessly. (well, outside of the header elements, but even 
> there I assume we can allow the mechanism for markup inside the header 
> elements. Or is that a distinction that makes any sense?)
> 
> Hope everyone is having a great day!
> 
> Patrick
>