[tei-council] Re : build failure

[Kevin Hawkins]

In mid-December Martin suggested that we tag examples of deprecated 
practices as @valid='false' or @valid='permanently', and Lou replied 
that it works for him (though not which which he meant).  He then said 
he checked in changes along these lines, but Sebastian said he believed 
@valid only affects schema validation.  Then, as quoted below, Lou said 
this was indeed the case, and Sebastian discussed this implications ...

On 12/14/13 6:58 AM, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> On 14 Dec 2013, at 11:10, Lou Burnard <lou.burnard at retired.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sho nuff. Cue long boring discussion about whether validation shd always include schematron constraints or not.
>
> Hmm. I just looked at this.
>
> If I switch the Schematron validation to only look at examples marked as valid, that will get the result you want today,
> but the warnings will remain switched off for ever, and so not kick in when the real moment arrives to kill the beasts.
>
> So, suppose we have element <foo> with inherited attribute @bar. we have an example using <foo bar=“…/>
> in the elementSpec for <foo>. We have decided to deprecate @bar, so we mark the example as invalid,
> and add @validUntil to the <attDef> for “bar” (in its attribute class). Come 2014, the warning on @bar kicks in,
> so the build fails, and someone goes in and removes that <attDef>. However, they are not warned to emend the example for <foo> which
> is now permanently marked as not needing validation, so it goes forward with its wrong example. This is bad bad bad.
> In the case where the whole element is to be zapped (<relationGrp>), things will be OK, but not otherwise. Remember also
> examples in the chapters, which would not be caught by removal of the elementSpec
>
> Therefore I suggest that your change to mark those examples as invalid may have been unwise, and should be reverted.
> I’d be happier to live with the build marked as cloudy-with-a-chance-of-warnings for a while until we have a more
> foolproof method.

As you can see, Sebastian left us with a proposal to revert these changes.

So where do we stand on marking examples as invalid?  Does our policy in 
tcw27 that "Any examples of the deprecated practice are removed from the 
Guidelines, and any prose recommending them is reworded as appropriate" 
still stand?

--Kevin