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

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk
Wed Apr 22 03:24:58 EDT 2009



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: more on constraint
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:24:26 -0400
From: Syd Bauman <Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu>
Reply-To: Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
To: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk>
References: <18925.55131.974295.3530 at emt.wwp.brown.edu> 
<49EE3E53.7090306 at oucs.ox.ac.uk> 
<18926.16759.409893.58019 at emt.wwp.brown.edu> 
<49EE4311.7050209 at oucs.ox.ac.uk>

Again, pls forward to Council:


> it was _trying_ to...

"It's the thought that counts."
Well, then, thank you! :-)


> no. is not just sugar, its a debased form. I'm not pursuing this
> formally, its just a pointer for ODD^3

OK, right. Then you'd still keep

   element content { att.global.attributes, ( macro.schemaPattern | 
valList )* }

and say that

   <content>
     <rng:duck/>
   </content>

is essentially equivalent to

   <constraint type="TEI-required" scheme="relaxng">
     <data>
       <rng:duck/>
     </data>
   </constraint>

Question: why is that "*" not a "+" in the definition of <content>?


> yes, @type was intended to do the same as functional groups,
> without the processing overhead of worrying about the extra
> element.

Right. Makes sense.


-- 
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


More information about the tei-council mailing list