[tei-council] the new <constraint> element

[Laurent Romary]

Sebastian expresses here the view that sounded the one of the majority  
at the council meeting: let us experiment something manageable in the  
short term and expend functionalities in a second step if necessary.
I would suggest to proceed with the slight revisions that have been  
suggested in the recent message and gather up arguments for the ODD  
debate.

Le 9 avr. 09 à 13:06, Sebastian Rahtz a écrit :

> James Cummings wrote:
>> I might want to group some constraints together for one reason even
>> though they have different schemes, and in other places put all the
>> xsl ones together.  i.e. I might want to have in one single ODD:
>>
> what are we trying to achieve with grouping? do you want the
> constraintGrp to be
> addressable at the customization level? ie say
>
> <constraintGrp ident="harsh" mode="delete"/>
>
> in your ODD? currently the only point of <constraintGrp>
> is to group things by language/scheme; if you group
> by functionality, the Grp should certainly by identifiable,
> and we'd have to support @scheme on <constraint>.
>
> if the Grps are to be semantic, then I suggest that we need
> to go back and add considerably more in the way of
> metadata to them (<desc>, or the full <biblStruct>). otherwise,
> whats the point of grouping?
>
> my feeling at the moment is to keep it simple, and only
> use Grp for syntax (ie @scheme). if you want grouped
> constraints, we can extend <constraint> to model and
> attribute classes
>
> -- 
> 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