Re: [docbook] Re: db._phrase

[Mike Maxwell <maxwell@umiacs.umd.edu>]

Norman Walsh wrote:
> The content model of db.phrase includes *all* the inlines. So if, for example,
> db.phrase was allowed inside abbrev, then this would be legal:
> 
>   <abbrev><phrase><constant>PI</constant></phrase></abbrev>
> 
> even though this *is not* legal:
> 
>   <abbrev><constant>PI</constant></abbrev>
> ...
> Make sense?

I think so.  Let me paraphrase my understanding: for purposes of 
validation, a doc which includes db.phrase and/or db._phrase elements 
will validate against the DB schema if and only if the doc validates 
when the <phrase>, <_phrase>, </phrase> and </_phrase> tags are simply 
omitted, with one potential exception.  The exception would be if the 
<phrase> or <_phrase> elements were marked with invalid attributes.

So for purposes of validation, the db.phrase and db._phrase elements are 
"transparent."

Is that correct?
-- 
    Mike Maxwell
    What good is a universe without somebody around to look at it?
    --Robert Dicke, Princeton physicist