[tei-council] what to do with dating attributes -- VOTE!

[Tone Merete Bruvik]

Sorry to be a bit late, but here are my vote:

På 16. feb. 2007 kl. 01.04 skrev Syd Bauman:

> Issue: name of main dating attr (date= vs value=)
> Solution: leave 'em as is
> Vote:
>
>      _X__ I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution
>
> Issue: classes -- @dur and @value in same or different attr classes?
> Solution: split 'em into separate classes
> Vote:
>
>      _X__ I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution
>
>
> Issue: keep <distance>?
> Solution: nuke it
> Vote:
>
>      _X__ I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution
>
> Issue: keep precision= of <date>
> Solution: nuke it
> Vote:
>
>      _X__ I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution
>
>
> Issue: method of expressing known day & month, unknown year, or
>        specific possible dates within a range
> Suggestion: defer to P5 1.x.
> Vote:
>
>      _X__ I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution

> Issue: constraint of date-regularization attributes: W3C, ISO, other
> Suggestions:
> A ("attribute level"): duplicate current attrs for each different 
> system
> B ("datatype level"): create duplicate datatype for each different
>                       system
> C ("class level"): create classes for each set of attrs from
>                    different systems; possibly implement with a new
>                    module so attrs are added when that module is
>                    loaded (like att.metrical gets added to
>                    att.divLike when verse is loaded)
> D ("all-in-one"): differentiate system by value's syntax
>
> Vote:
>
>          I have considered issue, and agree with proposed solution:
>      ___ A
>      ___ B
>      _X__ C
>      ___ D
>
>      _X_ It does not matter to me which solution is chosen, so go
>          ahead with whatever
>
Tone Merete Bruvik

Lyshovden 104
5148 Fyllingsdalen
55161123