[tei-council] "soft deprecation": use @status='deprecated' ?

[Gabriel Bodard]

Why would we ever delete them? This list isn't going to be in the 
thousands, is it? (Unless we do a wholesale renaming in P6, e.g. 
tei:teiHeader to tei:header, as I've suggested before. ;-) ) But a dozen 
schematron assertions ten years down the road isn't going to be 
especially intrusive, I don't think.

G

On 07/04/2013 18:06, Martin Holmes wrote:
> On 13-04-06 01:24 PM, Lou Burnard wrote:
>> On 05/04/13 20:46, Martin Holmes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13-04-05 10:38 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:
>>>> [Catching up on mail ... expect quite a few responses to old e-mail
>>>>      from me in the near future.]
>>>>
>>>> At first glance, I like this idea. I wonder where in the Guidelines
>>>> source ODD files we would put the Schematron code for an element that
>>>> is not being defined.
>>> TEI, or teiCorpus?
>>>
>>>      <assert test="not(descendant::deletedElement">
>>>             The deletedElement element was deprecated for several
>>> 	years, and was finally deleted in TEI release x.y.z.
>>>           </assert>
>>
>> This would mean we gradually accumulate a list of deleted elements in
>> the <TEI> spec. Ingenious. Let's hope we never need to delete the <TEI>
>> element....
>
> Of course that now gives us the problem of deciding after how long we
> should delete the Schematron warning for a deleted element...
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

-- 
Dr Gabriel BODARD
Researcher in Digital Epigraphy

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

E: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
T: +44 (0)20 7848 1388

http://www.digitalclassicist.org/
http://www.currentepigraphy.org/