[tei-council] Fwd: Re: Wot is wrong with my ODD?

[Lou Burnard]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [tei-council] Wot is wrong with my ODD?
Date: 	Sun, 08 Jun 2014 12:23:32 +0100
From: 	Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk>
To: 	Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz at it.ox.ac.uk>



On 08/06/14 10:40, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 8 Jun 2014, at 10:07, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that the presence of allowText generates an implicit alternate?
>> krekt
>>
>>> As it stands, I would suggest what you have above is contradictory and impossible to satisfy
>> once you allow text, a sequence child would be invalid and an alternate would be redundant (if we stick in the world of xml).
> trouble is, you can only satisfy that model in XML by generating an implicit alternate;  but if we went beyond
> XML, it appears to mean   "a, text, b, text, c, text”, i.e. the default if there is no wrapper is a sequence.
> I am not sure we should even allow multiple elementRef as direct child of content, because its ambiguous.

It's only ambiguous if you think a sequence of <elementRef>s directly
within <content> is valid.

>
> if you remove @allowText, do you agree its a sequence?
> --

No, I think it's an error.  A sequence has to be explicitly marked,
using, duh, <sequence>