> Martin Holmes and Hugh Cayless have commented on GitHub (without > rebuttal from anyone else) that of course conformance requires ... > validity against [tei_all.rng]. True enough, but the validity conformance requires is validity *of the stuff in the TEI namespace*. Sort of like you used an NVDL schema that validated constructs in the TEI namespace against tei_all.rnc and tei_all.isosch, and constructs in your namespace against your schema(s). Except that the ODD bulding process puts both of those notional schemas (the TEI and yours) into one output file (.rng) or two output files (.rnc and .isosch). > Does it matter to you or WWP whether they are conforming or > non-conforming uses of TEI? Ooh. Good question. The answer is (of course) both yes and no. We care, in the sense that we think about this issue and worry about it. We do not care, in the sense taht we do not mind ending up with a use of TEI that is not conforming. To be fiar, though, I think only 1 of the ODDs I mentioned is non-conformant. I just speng ~6 mins looking for that book, and easily found the cover. I was right, it has a playing card. But I did not find the content. So I guess I don't get to be disappointed, and can keep a memory of being thrilled at two different paths to read. (Except that my recollection is I found it annoying. :-) > I believe the manual is now publicly available from IBM’s web site > for IBM documentation, but I don’t want to take the time to locate > it again. I believe I did so once and didn’t find the two-path > reading quite as dramatic as it sounds. > > > > > But more importantly, it is *very* important that a conforming use > > of TEI be allowed to add attributes and elements to the vocabulary. > > I’m glad to have elicited that statement from you, given how many > times Martin Holmes and Hugh Cayless have commented on GitHub > (without rebuttal from anyone else) that of course conformance requires > (or possibly should require — I can’t usually tell whether they are > interpreting the current text or proposing a change) validity against > TEI All. > > Lou occasionally pipes up to say that of course extensions should be > conforming, but then he then explains that a conforming extension > will be valid against TEI All, which seems to suggest that he is speaking > an English-like language in which some of the terms he uses (‘valid’, > perhaps, or ‘not’) have a very different meaning from their meaning in > the variant of English I speak. > > > > > > My take on reality is that a lot of people out there in the world > > would prefer to avoid doing so. I'm not sure if that's because they > > find using ODD too hard (and if so is that because our documentation > > is not good enough), or don't want to deal with multiple namespaces, > > or think no one will like them (particularly their funding body) if > > they add something to their schema. But rest assured, it is a normal > > and accepted practice. > > > > (Of the half-a-dozen or so main TEI customizations we use at the WWP, > > three have added elements or attributes.) > > > > Does it matter to you or WWP whether they are conforming or > non-conforming uses of TEI?