[tei-council] on deprecation doc (was "Re: build failure")

[Syd Bauman]

> Why do you like [valid=false on <egXML> of validUntil= constructs]?
> The only effect is to mark the example as invalid in the formatted
> guidelines, when it isn't; and stops any validation at all of the
> rest of the example. It doesn't help users in their own workflow,
> and doesn't stop the example and it's contents being indexed by
> google etc.

Well, I could be talked out of it, but my thoughts:

* It marks the example as distinct -- is the average user going to
  know that a pink background means invalid *now* vs invalid *someday
  soon*? I think since there are red "deprecated" and "this feature
  will be withdrawn ..." boxes at the top, many users will be able to
  figure it out.

* I hadn't thought of the further validation of the <egXML>. But why
  do we care if it is further validated or not? Presumably it was
  valid *before* we added the validUntil=, and we're going to remove
  it pretty soon. And validating it generates the very warning
  messages I'm working on right now, which while technically correct,
  are a bit silly.

* I think it *does* help users. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it
  drives home the "deprecated" point pretty well.

* Why would we want Google *not* to index the example? I don't want
  to re-write history here, or *prevent* people from knowing it
  exists, I just want to suggest that using it has drawbacks.
  (Alright, I'm exaggerating for effect. :-)

But certainly we could achieve the same effect without lying if we
just colored egXML[ancestor::*[@validUntil]] pink or some such.

(Of course, what we *really* want is much more complicated -- flag
any example that has a construct that itself is flagged as
validUntil.)