Syd Bauman wrote:
> SR> I think Syd and I disagree on this; but I think a document can be
> SR> checked against validity of lots of different schemas. to be
> SR> conformant, the document validates against "tei_all", regardless
> SR> of what hacked schema the author may have used along the way
> To say I disagree with this is a monumental understatement. I
> disagree with it so strongly, Sebastian, that I hope you don't
> really mean this, and that it is really the case that
> a) we are talking at cross-purposes, and
> b) you simply haven't thought through the consequences.
Luckily, I mean a). I can't recall the context of the quote,
but I was talking about a *subset* of conformance, which
can be reduced to validation against tei_all. I just wanted
to say that there are situations where
an authoring schema can be composed by whatever
means and used to write texts which are then checked
against an off-the-shelf schema, without going to the bother
of a formal customization.
I definitely don't think conformance is limited to tei_all!
I also stress again that I see a range of conformance
types, not a on/off switch. I originally called them
"levels of conformance", but that was deemed too
judgemental, which is why I used "X", "Y" and "Z"
to Wendell last night.
> The second issue to discuss is the original question -- I'm worried
> that Sebastian and Wendell have forgotten that Ron Van den Branden
> *can* in fact remove numbered <div>s from his schema using ODD. It's
> just that he can't do so *easily*.
> For those interested, an example of doing this is available at
> http://www.tei-c.org/wiki/index.php/FAND2_replace. It is a lot of
> work, and appropriately intimidating -- one needs to know a lot about
> Relax NG syntax and deterministic content to remove numbered <div>s
> this way, but it works.
I will propose a reworking of the <body> model
later today which I hope will make it work.
> Certainly it is easy to see what to do in Lou's example case:
> (model.foo*, model.bar+, model.foo*)
> should become
> ( model.foo* )
> iff model.bar is empty.
yes. its a soluble problem, plainly. Just danged hard
in XSLT :-}
the big issue is why we _care_ about "model.foo*, model.foo*" and its
non-determinism. Can someone remind me why it matters whether an it is
the first or the second model.foo* which delivers validity?