[tei-council] validation of examples

[Lou Burnard]

Fair point James...

I think we need a proper definition of "feasibly" valid

Maybe a sf ticket proposing the addition of the @valid attribute to 
<egXML> (if that is indeed what we want to do) would help us concentrate 
on the problem better


On 30/01/11 12:16, James Cummings wrote:
>
> If that is the definition of feasibly valid, then what couldn't be? Is 
> this like "conformable" again?
>
> James
>
> James Cummings, University of Oxford
> (from phone)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Lou Burnard [lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk]
> *Received:* Sunday, 30 Jan 2011, 12:13
> *To:* Sebastian Rahtz [sebastian.rahtz at oucs.ox.ac.uk]
> *CC:* TEI Council [tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU]
> *Subject:* Re: [tei-council] validation of examples
>
> On 30/01/11 12:04, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > this seems parallel to the incomplete skeleton structures, which we 
> can deal with by adding
> > @valid="feasible|full" to<egXML>. The diary example  is feasibly 
> valid, I think.
>
> Hmm, rather depends on what you mean by "parallel"... if you mean
> "similarly generates a warning", then yes, but ontologically I think
> these cases are completely different. The incomplete skeletal examples,
> I continue to think, are not examples but schemata; there's no way they
> can be made valid without completing them. This one is (if you like)
> "feasibly" valid because an appropriately configured validator would
> recognise it as valid as it stands, though our validator doesn't.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
>
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived