content model of <person> et al permits <ptr> but not <ref>

[lb42]

The content model of <person> and (presumably other ography-elements tho I have not checked) is weird. A bit less weird than it used to be, but still weird. Amongst other things, it permits one or more <ptr> elements as direct child, but not (directly) <ref>. Since the former is a degenerate (empty) case of the latter, this really doesn't make any sense. How is a chap supposed to add useful links pointing (for example) to discussions of a Person elsewhere? Do I really have to wrap each <ref> inside a <bibl>, just because I want to say something about the URL I am supplying, whereas Mr Slapdash who is going to give you just the URL and nothing more is allowed to get away with a bare <ptr>?

[ebeshero]

@lb42 Reviewing this quickly, I agree that's rather oddly specific to require a <ptr> and not to allow <ref>. I don't think we had any good reason not to make the last part of the content model point to a class rather than just this element?

My recommendation is that we:

• replace the elementRef for <ptr> in the content model of <person> with the a classRef for model.ptrLike, since that would allow <listRef>, <ptr>, and <ref>,
• check the other "ography" elements to see how we've defined those and update accordingly.