[tei-council] description of <constraint>

[Laurent Romary]

I would also go for c)

Le 20 avr. 09 à 12:11, James Cummings a écrit :

>>
>> However, the issue I'd like a decision on is about a description.
>> there are four choices:
>>  a) do nothing yet. group <constraint>s by implementation language
>> inside <constraintList>s,
>>      that's it
>>  b) embed constraint description in the language itself, by whatever
>> means come naturally.
>>  c) add <desc>/<gloss>/<equiv> set to <constraint> content model
>>  d) add <desc>/<gloss>/<equiv> set to <constraintList> content model
>> (or e) propose a more complex documentation structure)
>
> I think I'd prefer c) myself.  How does schematron (for example) do  
> b)?
>    Obviously I think people should be allowed to do b) if they like,
> but what if they are using a really badly-designed constraint language
> that has no method for commenting or somesuch. (None occur to me, mind
> you...)  Although I want the ability for *some* documentation, I don't
> really want anything more complex than a <desc> or <gloss>.