error in pureODD content of <constraintSpec>?
The current released content model of <constraintSpec> is ( model.glossLike | model.descLike )*, constraint? The content model of <constraintSpec> in the dev branch is ( model.glossLike | model.descLike | constraint )* Thus the new content allows multiple <constraint>s. As much as I was the one arguing for this in the past,[1] until we're settled on exactly what it *means* to have 2 or more <constraint>s inside a <constraintSpec>, I think we should stick to the old content model. Notes ----- [1] I'm not going to go look it up now, but IIRC I argued w/ Sebastian et al. that we should permit multiple <constraint>s with different @xml:lang= values in a single <constraintSpec> in order to allow for different wording of messages in different natural languages. But IIRC we weren't going to implement this in the Stylesheets, so we didn't allow it in the schema, either. AND, it turns out, ISO Schematron already has its own built-in system for support of multiple languages. There is very little documentation on this feature, as far as I know, but see http://schematron.com/iso/P27.html#GEN39
I really think this can't go out like this. The problem crept in when Lou went to fix a problem with DTD generation from PureODD. Apparently only this file was affected.[1] Lou -- can you describe what the DTD problem was, in the hopes that we can come up with another solution? If we can't come up with a PureODD solution, we could add a Schematron constraint. Notes ----- [1] https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/commit/bfc5e4e55dbec131f25a87090e24c52d86f28c06
The current released content model of <constraintSpec> is
( model.glossLike | model.descLike )*, constraint?
The content model of <constraintSpec> in the dev branch is
( model.glossLike | model.descLike | constraint )*
Thus the new content allows multiple <constraint>s. As much as I was the one arguing for this in the past,[1] until we're settled on exactly what it *means* to have 2 or more <constraint>s inside a <constraintSpec>, I think we should stick to the old content model.
Most peculiar. The pure odd content model generated on dec 4 just needs a <sequence> round it. I cannot remember (or understand) why I added constraint into the alternation instead. Must have been something I ate. Have fixed it now in dev. On 16/03/16 20:58, Syd Bauman wrote:
I really think this can't go out like this. The problem crept in when Lou went to fix a problem with DTD generation from PureODD. Apparently only this file was affected.[1]
Lou -- can you describe what the DTD problem was, in the hopes that we can come up with another solution?
If we can't come up with a PureODD solution, we could add a Schematron constraint.
Notes ----- [1] https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/commit/bfc5e4e55dbec131f25a87090e24c52d86f28c06
The current released content model of <constraintSpec> is
( model.glossLike | model.descLike )*, constraint?
The content model of <constraintSpec> in the dev branch is
( model.glossLike | model.descLike | constraint )*
Thus the new content allows multiple <constraint>s. As much as I was the one arguing for this in the past,[1] until we're settled on exactly what it *means* to have 2 or more <constraint>s inside a <constraintSpec>, I think we should stick to the old content model.
participants (2)
-
Lou Burnard -
Syd Bauman