Re: schematron and conformance

On 27/03/17 13:33, Martin Holmes wrote:
> Hi Lou,
>
>> You *can* use @when together with (say) @notAfter if you don't invoke
>> schematron validation.
>
> and you *can* use <anyoldthing> inside <TEI> if you don't invoke 
> RelaxNG validation.

Except that validation against a RelaxNG  schema is explicitly part of 
our conformance definition, and validation against IsoSchematron isn't, 
or not so far as I can see. Hence my question.


>
> As far as I remember, the decision to express a constraint in a 
> Schematron rule as opposed to a construct that translates into RelaxNG 
> has never been made on the basis of the rule's supposed regulatory 
> force (for want of a better way of putting it); it's always been made 
> on the basis of practicality (we can't do this [yet] in ODD/RelaxNG). 
> Therefore I don't believe it makes sense to say that these constraints 
> are in any way less significant than regular constraints, except in 
> the case of deprecation warnings, which are explicitly warnings rather 
> than errors.
>

OK, thanks, that's an answer to my question. I'm not sure if I entirely 
agree with it -- it would enable us to side step birnbaum very easily -- 
but that's not relevant.