[tei-council] <licence>

[Gabriel Bodard]

On 2011-08-22 15:08, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> what would the content model of<availability>  be?
>
>    1.  (licence+ | p+)
>    2.  p*,licence*
>    3.  model.availabilityPart+
>
> (where model.availabilityPart includes p and licence).
>
> I'd tend to vote for 3.

What in practical terms is the different between 2. and 3.? That it is 
more generalizable, repurposable and extendable in the future? Or only 
that 2. would allow an empty <availability> while 3. wouldn't? (Oh wait, 
in 2. wouldn't that mean any <p>s always have to be before all <license>s?)



-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/