> Obviously I have to sharpen my terminology. You too?
> If 'well-formedness' in the given TEI context is to discuss only on
> the level of metalanguage, nodes are not to 'validate' (= parsed
> against the grammar defined by DTD or otherwise). But what means then
> the passage rightly picked up by Sylvain?
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
>> A strange statement in the Guidelines:
>> By default, a <formula> is assumed to contain character data which
>> is not validated in any way:
Yes, I agree that this use of the word "validated" is a bit strange in
context. It would be better to say that a formula contains arbitrary
character data, and mention that the special characters < and & if they
appear in that data must be represented by character entity references
(as indeed the revised text currently does). The use of the word
"validated" here probably predates the technical sense of that word (in
an XML context).
> Underlining the strangeness of such remark I cite an example for a
> date structure element:
> _dateStruct value='26-10-1775'_ _day value='26'_26_/day_ _month
> value='10'_October_/month_ _year value='1775'_1775_/year_ _/dateStruct_
> For me such examples are showing how TEI conformant markup allows
> semantic document processing without looking inside the nodes. Isn't it?
I am afraid I don't understand the point you are making here. But in any
case, the dateStruct element and its components have now been removed!