[tei-council] allowText

[Lou Burnard]

On 09/06/14 16:58, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2014, at 13:17, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> i would go with the most explicit (c) every time, as most extensible/sustainable.
>>> i don’t read a) as meaning "(text | a | b)*”
>> That's because you don't consider the full implications of @allowText.
> I’d claim back that you’re limiting yourself to XML rules, which we don’t need to.

Interesting debate (not for now) -- what non-XML features would we 
actually like to build into pure ODD ? The world is not exactly 
clamouring for mixed content models with text in funny places, so far as 
I can tell. How might we say in pure ODD that one element can overlap 
another?

>>>> 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
>> Eh? What does the display device have to do with it?
> lowest common denominator

alas, i am NTW (none the wiser)

I am curious about this, cos you must have understood case (a) in the 
same way as I do once. Else why did you implement it that way?