[tei-council] Preparation for F2F meeting

[Hugh Cayless]

Yeah, it’s most definitely worth discussing. As to Lou’s point: we do permit customization and the use of other schemas in TEI docs. Not being valid against TEI All doesn’t mean something isn’t TEI, it just means it isn’t only TEI, or is TEI that’s been augmented. If we’re talking about this as a tool for people who aren’t able to validate documents on their own, I’m not sure I’d want to be too dogmatic about it, particularly if we aren’t giving detailed information about why it doesn’t validate.

Hugh

> On Nov 16, 2014, at 11:47 , Peter Stadler <stadler at edirom.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 16.11.2014 um 11:37 schrieb Hugh Cayless <philomousos at gmail.com>:
> 
>> I worry a bit about a simple validation tool: what if someone checks a P4 document against it, for example? It might be perfectly valid P4, but come back as invalid. It seems to me that’s not very helpful…
> Yes, that’s a good point.
> I think we need something in between valid and invalid. (Maybe ‚conformable‘ ;)
> In my validation service I plan to implement various fallbacks. If a file is not valid against the current tei_all than try with 2.6.0, etc.
> Other schemas such as tite or P4 can easily detected by looking at the root node.
> If those files validate against the respective schema, I mark them ‚yellow‘ (and still lack a name for it).
> 
> In parts, it’s a political issue what to call ‚valid‘ but I think we should discuss it …
> 
> Best
> Peter
> 
>