[tei-council] dating attributes

Lou's Laptop lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Sun Oct 8 17:49:42 EDT 2006

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Sorry, my earlier posting showed I hadn't grokked @exact w/respect to 
> @to and @from.
> But now I see it, I find
> <foo notAfter="1992/01/03"  exact="from">
This is an error. If you want to say  "we don't know how long this foo 
went on for, or started, but it was definitely all over by 3 jan 92." 
you mean exact="to".
> a strange way of saying
>  <foo from="1992/01/03">
this means, we don't how long this foo went on for, but it definitely 
started on 3 jan 92

However, I assume your concern is not just because they mean something 

> Having one attribute qualifier another like this isn't great.

Agreed, but it seems to me a nice way of reducing the number of attributes.

> I'd kind of rather say
> <foo from="1992" fromExact="false" to="1993/01/01" toExact="true">
> but I am probably just burbling.

> Being a hardliner, I'd also just tell people "change data.temporal if 
> you must"
> and have done with it.

That doesnt really help with interchange, since it means all bets are 
always off. I'd rather have an attribute which reliably gives me a 
normalised date, and another one which might require some fancy processing.

More information about the tei-council mailing list