[tei-council] solving the Birnbaum Biznai

[Sebastian Rahtz]

M. J. Driscoll wrote:
> For what it's worth, I was and am persuaded by the arguments in favour of 
> implementing choice 2 below. Unfortunately I lack the technical knowledge 
> necessary to understand how serious the "serious implications" Sebastian 
> mentions are, but if solutions can be found in the course of a (possibly 
> incoherent) discussion at an airport I'd be tempted to say, let's go for it.
>   
Currently, we map classes onto RELAXNG patterns directly.
And RELAXNG patterns are simply alternates (or interleaves).
So to support the a?,b?,c? notion in the RELAXNG modules,
I have to rewrite a fair amount of odd -> relax. But thats
my problem.

The real question is whether you also want to do the work
to make sure we can continue  support the extensibility
system whereby all model classes have an "x.model.foo"
pattern which can be filled in.

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

OSS Watch: JISC Open Source Advisory Service
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk