[tei-council] Example of <app> with multiple <lem>s

[Lou Burnard]

On 14/06/13 10:00, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> This is redundant for <app>.  As I read the schema, it only allows one <lem> child
> of <app> anyway.  The problem is the beastly <rdgGroup> thing, and the fact that
> it can be repeated and self-nest.
>
> I fear that the simplest thing to do is to remove the constraint entirely for the moment
> unless and until someone can re-express what exactly it was intending to prevent.
> The alternative is a rethink of <rdgGroup>, which we don't have time or mandate for.
>
> now, you may ask why <rdgGroup> appears to allow multiple <lem> children. What
> is the intention there? maybe _it_ needs the constraint.
>

I don't think <rdgGrp> should be permitted to have multiple <lem> 
(direct) children, both because it makes no sense and because it would 
then be different from <app>, for which (in the passage I quoted in my 
previous mail on this topic) it occasionally substitutes.

So I would vote for removing the constraint, and possibly tweaking the 
content model of <rdgGroup>