Print

Print


> ... the bibl.content definition
>    <ref name="model.phrase"/>
> the current schema has replaced this with
>    <ref name="model.hiLike" />
>    <ref name="model.ptrLike" />
> which is more restrictive (in fact a subset of the content model
> for model.phrase).
> Is this intentional? If so, why? (<bibl> is meant to be free-form,
> no?)

Yes, it was intentional that model.phrase be replaced with several
sub-models in order to avoid ambiguity so that DTDs can be generated,
but no, it was not intentional that the result should restrict the
content of <bibl> from being free-form stuff that permits (among
other things) <rs>. I wish I could give you more details right away,
but my notes from the 'core class struggle' project are elsewhere (if
I can find them at all :-). I will try to look into this in more
detail and get back to you very soon.

Thanks, David.