[tei-council] two <date> proposals: 1 lumping, 1 splitting

James Cummings James.Cummings at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Mon Sep 11 17:42:20 EDT 2006

Syd Bauman wrote:
>>While far-fetched on minute, I could see it maybe on
>>year/month/week/day/hour I suppose. (Though I don't think I'd use
>>those that way, who knows.)
> So is that some useful rumination, or does it mean you are you in
> favor of combining att.datable and att.dated?

No, I am against that for the reasons you mentioned, specifically that 
there are many elements which have att.datable which in no way would 
it make sense to have @value be a date.  However, some of those above 
which currently have att.datePart could also include att.datable.

>>That said, I say leave them in both cases. It gives users choice.
>>They can then use from and to to indicate specific dates in ISO
>>format without using the ISO Period/Duration notation. Maybe there
>>is some reason that they might feel this is more appropriate to
>>their use? (Ease of processing, data entry. legacy conversion, or
> So I gather you're in favor of creating the two datatypes, and
> leaving the various range attrs (notBefore=, notAfter, from=, to=)
> available, yes?

Yup.  I'm getting lax in my old age.


More information about the tei-council mailing list