[tei-council] *Spec content inconsistency

[Martin Holmes]

> 	model.glossLike*, model.descLike*,
>
> you might be tempted to make <desc> mandatory always,
> but sadly that makes working in change or delete mode
> unreasonably hard.

We could do this with Schematron, surely --

"if (not(@mode='delete' or @mode='change')) then child::desc"

Cheers,
Martin

On 13-05-06 02:03 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I dont think i can defend the inconsistency here.
>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Is there a strong reason to constrain the order in
>> <constraintSpec> but not the others?
> no, I cant think of one.
>
>> And I understand why we want
>> to require at least one <desc> in a <moduleSpec>, but is there a
>> reason to constrain the order?
> no. but those content models do in general specify
> an order, for good or bad. so it would be consistent to
> switch all of them to
>
> 	model.glossLike*, model.descLike*,
>
> you might be tempted to make <desc> mandatory always,
> but sadly that makes working in change or delete mode
> unreasonably hard.
>
>> first I think it's worth asking the model.glossLike is in
>> <constraintSpec> at all? What's it for? They don't need
>> <altIdent>s or <gloss>s, do they?
>
> entirely true.
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research) of Academic IT
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>