[tei-council] Schematron constraint on <app>

[Gabriel Bodard]

I have to say, though, my opinion on that example isn't worth a hill of 
beans. I don't *do* Lachmannian apparatus criticus at all (hence my 
engagement with the apparatus tickets is mostly to keep arguing that we 
not restrict the app tag to manuscript variants...)

I'd suggest running this past someone like Marjorie, who *does* have 
strong opinions about apparatus. :-)

On 2013-06-11 17:05, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2013, at 16:53, Martin Holmes <mholmes at uvic.ca>
>   wrote:
>> He'd be the best person to confirm whether the example with multiple
>> <rdg>s, each with its own <lem>, makes sense. But since the example has
>> been there for ages, so we've been encouraging people to do things that
>> way, I think we should probably remove the Schematron constraint.
>>
>
> that would get us past the current block; but since Gabby doesn't
> like the example either, we could equally well comment-out the example!
>
>
> --
> Sebastian Rahtz
> Director (Research) of Academic IT
> University of Oxford IT Services
> 13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Digital Humanities
King's College London
Boris Karloff Building
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk

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