While I can add them to the wiki, I wanted to see if there were any
thoughts/reaction to the following schema suggestions? (more in a few
other emails which I'll hold off on for now to heighten my chances of a
If you might be revamping eventually for METS 2.0, maybe the following
drastic changes could be considered as well?
1) While inside of very simple text editors it can be easier to
distinguish attributes if they are upper-cased (most IDEs and text
editors use syntax coloring nowadays though), I believe especially for
widespread/mainstream use (such as for representing sitemaps,
Gopher-like hierarchical file navigation, linkbases, or distributable
packages, as I mentioned in my email with subject "Greetings"), it would
be easier for those hand-coding a file (or a portion of a file) to be
able to use lower-case attributes, as in XHTML.
2) Move to xml:id? Since ID presumes access to the DTD (for awareness
that it is an XML ID type), and since METS has no requirement (and I
believe should have no requirement) to parse the DTD, might METS change
to xml:id in a new version instead? (as did TEI in moving to P5). Of
course most consuming apps would be aware of the application's syntax,
but I think it might be more robust to use xml:id (TEI also made such a
change in going to P5).