[tei-council] where to put schematron constraints

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> I agree. And the easy way to make it somewhat simpler, of course, is
> to add "Schematron" to the possible types of schemas that can be
> obtained from Roma the web tool.
I do agree. I'd like to get this sorted out sometime in
the not too distant future, but I don't think there is
time to get it into the next release
>
> On the issue where to put the Schematron constraints, while I
> consider permitting them as a direct child of <elementSpec> better
> than as a child of <content>, it still seems like we would be
> constraining their location in a manner that misses the point of an
> ODD: to be able to associate the documentation with the formal
> constraint. 
>   
can you expand on this? can you list all the
places you want to put <s:pattern>? Among the choices
are
 - as immediate child of <elementSpec> (and <macroSpec> if needed)
 - anywhere at all inside <elementSpec>
 - as an optional 4th sibling of <desc>, <gloss> and <equiv> (heaven
   forfend we ever reach a 5th child, fellow Doris Lessing fans...)
 - inside a new content element <constraints>
 - inside a _second_ <content> element, with a different @type to 
distinguish it

More ideas on this needed.
>
> One can well imagine an ODD processor that made use of this somehow.
> E.g., putting the relevant Schematron code in a note that pops up
> when the user moses over the attribute name in the customized
> documentation. That sort of thing.
>   
don't we just simply use it in the validator?  but yes,
the more ways we can use it the better

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      

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