[tei-council] [Fwd: META: rethinking usage= of <elementSpec>]

[Laurent Romary]

True. It's one aspect of it. But remember what led to ODD: a clear  
view about what we wanted to acheive. I start being frightened by the  
prospect of having layers of patches in the guidelines (in ODD in  
particular) which may not make sense as a whole. But I am perhaps  
getting old...



Le 8 sept. 08 à 19:02, Lou Burnard a écrit :

> No harm in that, but there are some specific issues that need to be  
> decided before then, e.g. the question of where to put schematron  
> rules (SFFR 2055891)
>
>
>
> Laurent Romary wrote:
>> We do need (probably for the next F2F in the spring) a dedicated   
>> session to ODD: present and future. Would you all agree to have  
>> such a  technico-strategic discussion?
>> Le 8 sept. 08 à 17:46, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :
>>> Laurent Romary wrote:
>>>> If I remember well the origins of ODD, this attribute was put on   
>>>> elementSpec in case we would want to impose that a given element  
>>>> be  used only with the corresponding occurance indicator.
>>> surely that's covered elsewhere, though, by standard content models?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Sebastian Rahtz      Information Manager, Oxford University   
>>> Computing Services
>>> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>> _______________________________________________
>> tei-council mailing list
>> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council