[tei-council] constraint again

[Peter Boot]

Sebastian Rahtz schreef:
>         <constraint>
>           <desc>stuff</desc>
>           <content>
>              <xxxxxx/>
>           </content>
>         </constraint>
> 
>      but that makes it confusing for people who redefine the content
>      model of <content>.

I don't really like the use of <content> here. I know that a content 
model, in the abstract, is just another constraint, but the word has an 
intuitively very clear meaning which is (was): this is about the content 
of an element. To reuse it here in the sense of the content vs. the 
description of a constraint to me is confusing. Couldn't we have e.g. 
'rule':

          <constraint>
            <desc>stuff</desc>
            <rule>
               <xxxxxx/>
            </rule>
          </constraint>

>       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.

Would we then need or want to group the groups? I thought we also wanted 
to be able to use groups for logical grouping of constraints.

If we want alternatives, why not use choice? Or altConstraint? Something 
that is a little bit more explicit about the intended semantics.