[tei-council] <licence>

[Gabriel Bodard]

On reflection, I think I would vote for 3. as well, rather than asking 
questions that I then answer myself. ::rolls eyes::

On 2011-08-22 15:24, Gabriel Bodard wrote:
> 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/