Yes, that's exactly what I was agreeing with.

p

At 09:29 AM 4/1/02 -0500, Houghton,Andrew wrote:
>> From: Priscilla Caplan [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 02:48 PM
>>
>> At 11:41 AM 3/29/02 -0500, Geoff Mottram wrote:
>> >I would like to propose an alternative declaration for the
>> name, subject
>> >and title elements that tackles the various issues raised with the
>> >current implementation. It requires the general design
>> philosophy that
>> >if an element may contain sub-elements, it should not also contain
>> >regular content.
>>
>> I actually agree with this rather strongly as a general
>> design principle.
>> Though we deal with many schemes (including EAD) that do
>> allow mixed PCDATA
>> and subelements, implementation is much easier if you do not allow it.
>>
>
>Actually, Geoff was not proposing (although I don't want to put words in
>his mouth) mixing tags and PCDATA.  What I believe he was proposing was
>either or.  According to a DTD schema both are considered mixed content
>models.  Here is his <creator> example:
>
>  <creator>
>    <type>personal</type>
>    <name>Abrams, Michael</name>
>    <description>(American artist, 20th c.)</description>
>  </creator>
>
>In DTD term he was proposing:
>
>  <!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|(type,name,description)>
>
>so you can have either any text you want or the elements type, name
>and description.  In this model you cannot mix text between the
>elements type, name and description.  He was not proposing:
>
>  <!ELEMENT creator (#PCDATA|type|name|description)>
>
>The latter would be like HTML where you can do:
>
>  <div>
>    This is some text...
>    <a href="#">This is a link</a>
>    This is more text...
>  </div>
>
>
>Andy.
>