[tei-council] rationalizing special list content

[Martin Holmes]

+1 from me. I like symmetry.

Cheers,
Martin

On 14-09-08 12:46 PM, Syd Bauman wrote:
> [Warning: intended to be read (as most my e-mail is) using a
> fixed-width, aka "monospaced", typeface.]
>
> Working on bug 658 I find that the content models of special lists
> are as follows:
>
>   element listEvent    { ( model.headLike*, ( event | listEvent )+,             ( relation | listRelation )* ) }
>   element listNym      { ( model.headLike*, ( nym | listNym )+,                 ( listRelation | relation )* ) }
>   element listOrg      { ( model.headLike*, ( org | listOrg )+,                 ( listRelation | relation )* ) }
>   element listPerson   { ( model.headLike*, ( model.personLike | listPerson )+, ( relation | listRelation )*)  }
>   element listPlace    { ( model.headLike*, ( model.placeLike | listPlace )+,   ( listRelation | relation )*)  }
>   element listRelation { ( model.pLike+ | relation+ ) }
>
> I am planning to update these to the following:
>
>   element listEvent    { ( model.headLike*, ( event | listEvent )+,             ( relation | listRelation )* ) }
>   element listNym      { ( model.headLike*, ( nym | listNym )+,                 ( relation | listRelation )* ) }
>   element listOrg      { ( model.headLike*, ( org | listOrg )+,                 ( relation | listRelation )* ) }
>   element listPerson   { ( model.headLike*, ( model.personLike | listPerson )+, ( relation | listRelation )*)  }
>   element listPlace    { ( model.headLike*, ( model.placeLike | listPlace )+,   ( relation | listRelation )*)  }
>   element listRelation { ( model.headLike*, ( relation | listRelation )+ ) }
>
> I.e., I'm going to
>
>   0) Allow <listRelation> inside <listRelation> (per the
>      Council-approved ticket)
>
>   1) re-arrange some of the elements within the models just to make it
>      consistent. These changes will have no effect on which documents
>      are valid on which are not.
>
>   2) add model.headLike* to <listRelation>, which Council did not
>      approve, but seems like a general purpose good idea.
>