On 27/03/17 15:23, Syd Bauman wrote:
>> Well, this is begging the question. Yes if you consider validity
>> against schematron constraints to be a necessary part of TEI
>> conformance. No if it isn't.
> And I do consider validity against constraints (Schematron or
> otherwise) that are errors (as opposed to just warnings) to be
> a necessary part of TEI conformance.
OK. So now someone needs to formulate the principles by which it is
decided whether something is an error or just a warning.
>> This is all well and good. But am I wrong in thinking that
>> occasionally schematron constraints are introduced which do not
>> cause any component to be "deprecated" in the sense that they gain
>> a @validUntil attribute which sets in train the scenario you
>> describe? Constraints which just say "up till now the Guidelines
>> may have permitted this because the schema wasn't expressive
>> enough, but it's always been wrong and now we're going to check for
> You are (of course) completely correct. There exist quite a few such
> "now we can check for it" constraints. (And there will probably be
> more as time goes on.)
Gulp. Sounds like a threat....