I've raised a ticket for this:
Please chime in to correct any misunderstandings in my summary.
On 2017-03-27 07:26 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
> 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....