> On 19 May 2015, at 22:53, Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 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).
Allowing <app> to both be a child of <p>, to to contain <p>, and to be a sibling of <p>, would be an interesting challenge for
the TEI content model writer. Not that this should put you off, I hasten to add. It may be no harder than making <app> behave like
<q>. When I (as a processor of TEI texts) tell you that <q> gives me more headaches than other element, that shouldn’t worry you, either.
You plainly describe a real situation. So the TEI has 3 choices:
1. tell you to use standoff except when an app is inline (the status quo)
2. compromise on a <q>-like <app> which may do an 80/20 job for you (but wouldn’t work with existing tools)
3. create a new <appBlock> which can appear anywhere, and behaves like Magic
Luckily, I don’t have a vote, so I don’t have to tell you which I prefer.
Chief Data Architect, IT Services