[tei-council] content model of body etc

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
>> Does anyone care to discuss this further? 
>>     
>
> Yes, I do. I won't get to it today, but will take a careful look Wed
> hopefully post by Thu. At first glance missing a few model.glabals,
> and has an extra nesting level, but looks good. 
I think that level of thing, really kicking the tires
of the content model, is for you and Lou in private.
What I meant was whether Council need be bothered
by this any more, until the FAND results come back.
> (Have you tested it w
> non-DIV removals? I remember being vaguely suspicious that removing
> macro.component would cause non-determinism,
>   
removing macro.component would cause the world
to fall about our ears, I think, so I suggest you don't
try that :-}

I assumed it was almost beyond belief that a customization
would succeed in making macro.component completely empty.

Now that the content model has blown up to be as big
as the original, it might even be easier to re-use the old
one with a simple substitution of classes. The interesting
part was when it was _much_ simpler and relied on Schematron.

Lou, if you want to start on it, there is some work
to do in the names of the new model classes and their
descriptions, which can be tested in testfand.odd.
When you're happy with that, it can be broken out
into *spec files. At the same time, remove Syd's
macro-based attempt to solve the problem.

-- 
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