[tei-council] constraint again

[Sebastian Rahtz]

talking to Lou about this today raised a number of issues I need advice on.

   a) if we add <desc> and friends as children of <constraint>, we'd 
have a model
     of
        gloss?,desc?,equiv?,anyXML
     which makes both Lou and I feel uneasy. it looks too much
     like mixed content. ie every operation has to pick out
     "everything except gloss/desc/equiv". doable, of course,
     but, well, icky.

     one possibility is the verbose

        <constraint>
          <desc>stuff</desc>
          <content>
             <xxxxxx/>
          </content>
        </constraint>

     but that makes it confusing for people who redefine the content
     model of <content>.

     does this bother others?

   b) is <constraintGrp> a necessary container, or a convenience
     semantic or syntactic grouping? ie
       - can it be omitted, and does <constraint> therefore have
         @scheme
       - does the Grp need its own ident and description?

     I am almost thinking I'd rather have

       <constraintGrp ident="xyz">
         <desc>stuff</desc>
         <constraint scheme="schematron">
            ... stuff ...
         </constraint>
         <constraint scheme="xyz">
            .... stuff ...
         </constraint>
       </constraintGrp>

      repeated multiple times. the semantics would then be that
      <constraint> children of Grp are _alternative implementations_,
      and multiple Grps are _additive_, ie must all apply.

sorry for going round in circles on this, but I
am not yet sure we have the best plan.

And yes, David's point is good, that this may well
change in incompatible ways in the coming years, and that
we may have to accept that.
-- 
Sebastian Rahtz
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Sólo le pido a Dios
que el futuro no me sea indiferente