[tei-council] constraint again

[Sebastian Rahtz]

Peter Boot wrote:
> 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.
its like 
<elementSpec><desc>...</desc><content>...</content></elementSpec>, I guess.
> Couldn't we have e.g. 'rule':
yes, but a) it would confuse Schematron folks, who already use <rule>; 
and b) its a shame
to add a new *if* it really is the same as <content>
> 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.
>
fair point.

I'm still brooding

-- 
Sebastian Rahtz      
Information Manager, Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431