[tei-council] rowing back on <mixedContent>

[Martin Holmes]

On 14-07-04 07:34 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> we decided this week to fork <content> into
>
>    a) a full <content> which allows any construct you like, including <textNode>
>    b) a restricted <mixedContent> which does not permit <textNode>, and is interpreted
> as meaning “everything is an alternation with PCDATA”
>
> which seemed like a good idea.
>
> I wonder now, though, why we are bothering? we are supplying <mixedContent>
> simply to provide a safe environment for those who will need to make an XML DTD
> from their efforts. Is that a sensible use of our time and energy?

This question will keep coming up until we make a decision to deprecate 
DTDs. I think that decision is long overdue. As long as we're supporting 
DTDs, we'll have to do extra work like this to work around their 
limitations, and as long as we put off making the final decision (which 
has to be made eventually) to set the date for abandoning them, work on 
Pure ODD will be a bit hamstrung.

So I'd say that before doing this work, we should start a process of 
consultation with the community, pointing out the limitations of DTDs 
and showing how supporting them is hindering the move forward into the 
brave new world of Pure ODD, and see what kind of reactions we get. If 
there's a strong push-back, then I think we can say that the extra work 
is justified and we have to do it. If there's not, then we can set a 
date for deprecation of DTDs which could be the same date by which we 
aim to migrate all our content models to Pure ODD.

In other words, let's agree on a strategy before we argue about tactics.

Cheers,
Martin

> --
> 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.
>