[tei-council] date proposal

Lou Burnard 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 Jal&#x0101;li, 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[1] 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[1] 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.

[1] Syd's terminology, not mine

More information about the tei-council mailing list