Sorry I didn't weigh in earlier. I was busy prepping for my TEI
Customization workshop (thanks for the help, guys), then got hit with
a blizzard.
And I see that Martin checked in the change only a few hours ago!
Sigh.
I have two thoughts:
1) Shouldn't it be <oneOrMore> instead of <zeroOrMore>? Yes, the
effect is the same (since a text node may be the empty string), but
I think it's a wee bit clearer.
2) While we're fixing this declaration, shouldn't we
a) check for proper (see next para) use of various constraint
languages?
b) use Pure ODD?
Hard to say what exactly is proper. My first (I think incorrect)
instinct is something like the following (which is expressed as a
customization ODD so I had somewhere to hang the namespaces, which
you'll need to understand it).
--------- start ---------
<elementSpec ident="content" mode="change" module="tagdocs"
xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
xmlns:sch="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"
xmlns:s="http://www.ascc.net/xml/schematron"
>
<content>
<alternate minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<textNode/>
<macroRef key="macro.anyXML"/>
</alternate>
</content>
<constraintSpec scheme="isoschematron" ident="iso-schematron-uses-iso-schematron">
<constraint>
The proposed change seems reasonable to me as well.