[tei-council] allowText

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 9 Jun 2014, at 12:21, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> Sorry to bang on about this, but we need to resolve the issue.
> 
> I want to express in pure ODD the content model (text | a | b)*
> 
> I can imagine 3 ways this might be done in pure ODD
> 
> (a) <content allowText="true">
>        <elementRef key="a"/>
>         <elementRef key="b"/>
>     </content>
> 
> (b) <content  allowText="true">
>        <alternate>
>          <elementRef key="a"/>
>          <elementRef key="b"/>
>        </alternate>
> </content>
> 
> (c) <content >
>        <alternate allowText="true">
>          <elementRef key="a"/>
>          <elementRef key="b"/>
>        </alternate>
> </content>

i would go with the most explicit (c) every time, as most extensible/sustainable.
i don’t read a) as meaning "(text | a | b)*”

> 
> Of these only the first currently generates (text | a | b)*  The second 
> generates
> (text | (text | bit | bob))* which is gibberish; the third generates 
> just (a | b)
> 
behaviour of c) is a bug. a) is tricky - the current output is not ideal,
but is an LCD


> Personally, I stand by my view that (a) is the right way to express the 
> required content model. It is not ambiguous unless you think that 
> multiple ungrouped elementRefs implies a sequence. But if that were 
> true, why did we invent the sequence container?
to group them together in alternates?

> p.s. I haven't included occurrence indicators above; if you do they are 
> always ignored anyway. In the fullness of time they should generate an 
> additional schematron constraint perhaps.

some of them work…
--
Sebastian Rahtz      
Director (Research) of Academic IT
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

Não sou nada.
Nunca serei nada.
Não posso querer ser nada.
À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.