[tei-council] [Fwd: Re: more on constraint]

[Sebastian Rahtz]

from syd

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: more on constraint
Date: 	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:59:01 -0400
From: 	Syd Bauman <Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu>
Reply-To: 	Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
To: 	James.Cummings at oucs.ox.ac.uk, Sebastian Rahtz 
<sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
References: 	<18925.55131.974295.3530 at emt.wwp.brown.edu> 
<49EDD99E.30309 at oucs.ox.ac.uk> <49EDDC7C.2060905 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>



[Feel free to forward to Council if this is an interesting question,
feel free not to if it's already been answered and I just don't know
about it.]

Why do we need scheme= on <constraint>, BTW? Isn't the namespace of
the content sufficient? (In fact, not that I'm suggesting it's a good
idea, but couldn't the constraints in various languages be tucked
into a single <constraint>?)

  <constraint>
    <rng:oneOrMore ref="humbug"/>
    <sch:assert test="count(./tei:humbug)=17">wrong number of
      humbugs!</sch:assert>
  </constraint>


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