On 23 Feb 2014, at 12:45, Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> my only worry is whether its a new <persona>, or allowing <person> to nest inside <person>. Is
> there anything about a <person> which a <persona> would not have as well?
are you suggesting a persona may not have sub-personae?
> no but seriously, surel;y it makes life easier for implemetors to know that there will only ever ne one <person xml:id="syd">?
thats always true, @xml:id being what it is. you can’t have <person xml:id=“syd”> and <persona xml:id=“syd”>.
given that we use <person> for all of Syd Bauman, Peer Gynt, and Bilbo Baggins (bizarrely not
yet distinguishing by @type), I can’t think of an occasion when an implementor is disadvantaged by
Director (Research) of Academic IT
University of Oxford IT Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431
Não sou nada.
Nunca serei nada.
Não posso querer ser nada.
À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo.