Yes, I tend to say that this (multiple text elements) feels like an error that slipped through. But I wonder why no-one has foreseen this consequence when implementing 561?! Or maybe it’s been on someones hidden agenda? Cheers Peter

Am 16.08.2017 um 01:20 schrieb Syd Bauman :

The change instantiated as a result of TEI issue 561 means (if you summarily ignore all the other things in model.resourceLike) that TEI = ( teiHeader, \text+ )

That strikes me as a bad idea. I'll bet there is lots of code in the world that presumes that a <TEI> has at most one child <text>. (I know I have some programs that assume that.)

Furthermore, the prose of DS still says

A full TEI document combines metadata ... with the document itself, represented by either a text element or one or more other elements taken from the mode.resourceLike class, or the two in combination. ^ | + [sic]

which implies a single <text> element, until you realize that <text> is now a member of model.resourceLike, and then you are a bit confused. And the description of <TEI> says

contains ... a single TEI header, a single text, one or more members of the model.resourceLike class, or a combination of these.

which explicitly states one and only one <text>, but then allows one or more member of model.resourceLike.

I do not think we intended to permit <TEI> <teiHeader><!-- ... --></teiHeader> <text><!-- ... --></text> <text><!-- ... --></text> <text><!-- ... --></text> </TEI> when we did this, let alone <TEI> <teiHeader><!-- ... --></teiHeader> <facsimile><!-- ... --></facsimile> <text><!-- ... --></text> <facsimile><!-- ... --></facsimile> <text><!-- ... --></text> <facsimile><!-- ... --></facsimile> <text><!-- ... --></text> </TEI> -- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council

PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived