Sebastian, what you describe is actually what happens in real life. Of course, a whole chapter, present in some manuscripts, can be omitted in others, so <app> should indeed be allowed to contain <div>s.
Just making <app> to be a sibling of <p> would already be an improvement. But what would be really useful would be to allow <app> to contain several <p>s, just like a <div>. I'm guessing that containing <div>s is not the most important thing, if it helps with the content model (and your quills). In the case of the present / omitted chapter mentioned above, for instance, instead of this:
<rdg wit="#C #D"/>
we could have a structure like this one:
That would be satisfying enough.
----- Mail original -----
De: "Sebastian Rahtz" <[log in to unmask]>
À: "Burghart Marjorie" <[log in to unmask]>
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Envoyé: Mardi 19 Mai 2015 23:23:35
Objet: Re: Encoding divergent ending of a story (or: the <app> strikes back)
> On 19 May 2015, at 22:06, Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would argue that the point is not to loosen the TEI model, but to correct it.
> As it is, the TEI model is assuming that variants do not occur at div or paragraph levels. This is just plain wrong.
Hang on, now. You started asking for <app> to be a child of <div>, to allow for an entire paragraph
being a variant. Now you’re saying that an entire <div> can be a variant; and I would assume you also
would say that a <front> or a <titlePage> can be a variant too?
Nothing wrong with this, but it raises horrendous problems in actually constructing TEI
content models which support what you describe. My hair is doing its "quills upon the fretful porpentine”
thing at the thought. You’d have to make <app> a member of model.global, so it could appear
_anywhere_, and then give it a content model not unlike <floatingText>. And then you’d have
to learn how to process it.
If you want to compromise by saying that you just want <app> to be blocklike, i.e. be a sibling of <p>,
my quills relax.
Chief Data Architect, IT Services