[tei-council] Unfinished <quotation> element in example?

[James Cummings]

On 23/11/12 15:07, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
> I support allowing members of model.encodingDescPart with have
> specialized attributes to be empty elements -- that is, changing
> model.pLike+ to model.pLike*.  We might get questions from people about
> why certain members of model.encodingDescPart require at least one <p>
> inside while others don't, but I think our rationale for doing so is
> pretty sound.


I'd support this as well.  Though I think it is _good practice_ 
to provide a paragraph of explanation as well, I don't think it 
is should always be required.

> Should this be a ticket for discussion with a wider community, or should
> we just do this?

I like to have tickets where possible so we can more easily track 
something being done (when I help compile release notes ;-) ).

-James

>
> On 11/23/12 6:07 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> I think changing the content model to permit an empty element would be
>> preferable.
>> Same probably applies to those other members of enodingDesc which have
>> specialised attributes like this.
>>
>>
>> On 22/11/12 22:43, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Jinks seems to be showing a new error it hasn't shown before, triggered
>>> by validation of an example in the CO chapter, in COHQ:
>>>
>>> 'warning: unfinished element "quotation": "((teix:p | teix:ab))+"
>>> required to finish the element'
>>>
>>> This is the relevant bit of the example:
>>>
>>> <quotation marks="none"/>
>>>
>>> According to the content model, this is an error:
>>>
>>>       <content>
>>>         <oneOrMore xmlns="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0">
>>>           <ref name="model.pLike"/>
>>>         </oneOrMore>
>>>       </content>
>>>
>>> But the content model hasn't changed since April, and the CO chapter
>>> hasn't changed for three weeks. Does anyone remember seeing the error
>>> before? We don't seem to have discussed the issue of the content model
>>> of <quotation> on the Council list or on SF recently.
>>>
>>> Should we change the content model of <quotation> to <zeroOrMore>? Or
>>> would it be better to supply a paragraph with some explanation in the
>>> example?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
Dr James Cummings, James.Cummings at it.ox.ac.uk
Academic IT Services, University of Oxford