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

[Sebastian Rahtz]

On 6 Oct 2014, at 11:51, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

>>  Special-casing it as a shortcut implies
>> its the norm, when I suggest that it isn’t (“text | <gi>” is our norm).
> I think by "<gi>" mlearned friend means "<g>" . Note also that this is a 
> "norm" in  TEI practice, not in XML schemas in general. pureODD is 
> intended for use outside the TEI too.

Yes, accepted.

>> 
>> Re <mixedContent>, what’s missing is the definition of what “textual
>> nodes” are. I feel the same way as about the “text node” in <textNode>,
>> that mapping it to “string” implies that this a good norm which is correct for most
>> cases.  Lou and I see this differently. YMMV.
> 
> It is true that we need to decide what the "text" part of "mixedContent" 
> is. However, unlike textNode, the user can easily change the meaning of 
> <mixedContent> by redefining its content model.

Sort of. The user cannot change how <mixedContent> is implemented
(its content model isn’t relevant here) but they can change their use of it
i.e. by adding extra *Ref to the mix.

> Note also exactly the same uncertainties about what "text" means (for 
> example, are spaces normalised or not?) apply to the @allowText proposal.

yes. very happy to see that go.

I think you and I _do_ actually agree on where to go:

 * no <textNode> (use macroRef key=“data.text”)
 * define the “text node” in <mixedContent> to mean 'rng:data tyoe=“string”'

I might wonder whether we need a new element to replace macroRef key=“data.*
so that we can start to deprecate macros, but that’s another matter.

--
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.