[tei-council] <content> vs <mixedContent>

[Lou Burnard]

On 04/10/14 14:46, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2014, at 11:34, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The semantics of <textNode> == data/@type=‘string’, no?
>> rng:text or rng:string ? presumably the latter.
> eh? rng:string doesn’t exist, does it?

sorry, i meant xsd:string, obvs


>
>> Calling our macro "data.text" (even though it has the value rng:string) is going to return to bite us several times, I foresee. For example, the macro macro.xtext is defined as "text | model.glike" not "string | model.gLike".
>>
>> How do you feel about giving <textNode> macro.xText as content? It's more consistent with the TEI semantic model!
> Yes, I was going to raise this point. But then how do people say they really _do_ want just text?
>
> The more I think about this in real life, the more I worry about the biting. Using <mixedContent>
> at least has the benefit that we avoid saying what the “mixed” consists of, but <textNode>
> exposes us to the “text” question which seems to haunt us like Europe haunts the Conservative Party.
>
>   * if <textNode> == rng:text, people have to be taught to add <macroRef key=“model.gLike”/> as well
>   * if <textNode> == data.text, then people can’t specify just the equivalent of <rng:text>

1. we decided that all datatype declarations must be indirect, so 
<textNode>  has to have a content model of macro.something, for symmetry.

2. macro.something could be either macro.xText , maps to 
(text|model.gLike)* or (as yet nonexistent) macro.Text  which maps to 
text, or indeed something else we haven't thought of yet

If someone thinks the TEI has decided the wrong way (for a given 
application) redefining the macro is not so hard.


>
> since we’re saying that <mixedContent> is for newbies, and <content> is for experts, the experts
> might as just use the full power of data.*; why bother with the shortcut element for the
> (actually very unusual) case of #PCDATA (we use that 2 or 3 times in the TEI)? note also
> the lack of symmetry with <datatype> content.

newbies might want to have simple (unmixed) text content, surely?

>
> as I said, promoting use of <textNode> seems like we’re teaching people to make
> old-skool XML DTDs where that was the only datatype available.

There you've lost me.