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

[James Cummings]

Syd Bauman wrote:
> Did he dissent non-violently?

I was just slightly uneasy, not having a clear sense if there were 
good reasons to have them.

> There are *no* nested <date>s (or <time>s) in the distributed WWP
> corpus. If we don't do it ... :-)

...then no one else should? No, with the removal of various other 
time/date elements I think the self-nesting of date/time is crucial.

> Nonetheless, I am a bit uncomfortable silently dropping these
> elements without posting to TEI-L and finding either
> a) no one uses them, OR
> b) very few people want them AND we create an exemplar customization
>    that includes them

Yes, it is that uncomfortableness I felt.  I say post to TEI-L, see if 
anyone screams, if only a few people are minorly concerned, the go 
with b.  In fact, when we get rid of elements simply because we think 
people don't want/use them, then creating examples of how to add them 
back in seems a good idea.

> If we find a lot of people do want them, we probably shouldn't drop
> them. 

I agree with Lou that I don't think there will be a strong public 
outcry (esp. given the same information can be recorded with 
date/time), we'll see.

> [Waiting for next post before further comment, although I also am not
> very worried about "whole range" vs "point within range" ambiguity,
> although we may want to discuss it a bit somewhere in the Guidelines,
> or make which is the case explicit for each element.]

Wasn't this what @exact was for?  i.e. from/to/both/none

-James


-- 
Dr James Cummings, Oxford Text Archive, University of Oxford