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

Syd Bauman Syd_Bauman at Brown.edu
Mon Oct 9 21:34:27 EDT 2006

> > 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.

True enough -- while I think perhaps <day>, <minute> and company
should be nuked (pending outcome of query on TEI-L), I think nesting
should be permitted.

> I say post to TEI-L, see if anyone screams, if only a few people
> are minorly concerned, the go with b.

OK. So if there are no objections here in 48 hours I will send a
query to TEI-L. 

> > [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

No, I don't think so. To use Lou's examples, if we're talking about a
birth, it is a "day within range" whether the endpoints of that range
are exact or not; if we're talking about a name it is "whole range"
whether the endpoints are exact or not.

More information about the tei-council mailing list