Re: schematron and conformance
Lou Burnard <[email protected]> Mon, 27 Mar 2017 15:26:32 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.tei.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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 >> it." > 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....