[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