[tei-council] date proposal
lou.burnard at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Mon Oct 9 13:18:13 EDT 2006
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Syd Bauman wrote:
>> If I were in Afghanistan, it would be <date norm="2006-10-08"
>> reg="1385-07-16" calendar="Persian">Mehr 16, 1385</date>, because
>> I would be using the Jalāli, or Persian, calendar.
> ah thats the @reg vs @norm difference. seems a
> bit odd to me. If I have 1385-07-16 in Persian,
> can't I automatically derive 2006-10-08? If so,
> the @norm is redundant; if not, then how did the
> @norm get worked out?
> I probably show my ignorance of calendars.
We have been round this loop already.
Suppose you are working on a medieval source which refers to a date such
as 12 i MDDDIV. If there are scads of such things chances are you'd
prefer to work in the medieval calendar passim, so you want to just
regularize the date (to 1304-01-12). But if you want to compare dates
between sources prepared using different calendars (e.g. you have a
muslim source in which dates are given in some other form) you have to
normalize them as well. But normalizing to the equivalent modern
date (some time in dec 1303 probably) requires a major calculation,
involving the precession of the equinoxes and the 30days we lost in
17-whenever and who knows what else.
So, no, it aint easy.
 Syd's terminology, not mine
More information about the tei-council