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

[Lou Burnard]

On 08/06/14 20:04, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> I dont think I quite agree with Lou’s interpretation.
>
> ...
> I dont think the content model should be different depending on the existence of @allowText.

We could go back to having a different element (<mixedContent>) then? 
with a different content model/semantics?
>> -- nothing (the element has text content)
>>
>> -- one or more elementRefs or macroRefs or classRefs (the specified
>> content is alternated with text 0:n times )
>>
>> -- if sequence or alternation are specified, it is an error since we are
>> only supporting XML at present, and it would therefore make no sense to
>> allow them
> i would turn this around, and say that you continue to use sequence or alternate as you
> desire, but that only alternate + @allowText makes sense if you’re generating XML
> schemas, so a <sequence> would be rewritten as an alternate at the moment in this situation

So sometimes my <sequence> generates a sequence, and sometimes it 
generates an alternation? I thought you didn't like ambiguity?


>> 3. @allowText is not supported on anything other than <content> (its
>> presence elsewhere is is a corrigible error in the current spec)
> disagree, for  futre proofing.

I hear what you're saying. But we don't want a dozen ways of doing the 
same thing.

>
> we need Schematron rules which enforce XML, not a weakening of Pure ODD
>
hear hear