[tei-council] [Fwd: [ tei-Feature Requests-2909766 ] make <del> and <add> (etc) dateable]

[Martin Holmes]

This looks sensible to me. I don't think we need to worry about the 
bright spark scenario; if it's unambiguous that the date is the date of 
the addition or deletion, then the discovery that an addition was 
wrongly dated simply requires that the markup be changed.

I vote yes on this. I can see a practical usage of this for myself in 
the next year or two, on an upcoming project.

Cheers,
Martin

Lou wrote:
> Any views on this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject:
> [ tei-Feature Requests-2909766 ] make <del> and <add> (etc) dateable
> From:
> SourceForge.net <noreply at sourceforge.net>
> Date:
> Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:06:16 -0800
> To:
> "noreply at sourceforge.net" <noreply at sourceforge.net>
> 
> To:
> "noreply at sourceforge.net" <noreply at sourceforge.net>
> 
> 
> Feature Requests item #2909766, was opened at 2009-12-06 21:28
> Message generated for change (Comment added) made by louburnard
> You can respond by visiting: 
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=644065&aid=2909766&group_id=106328
> 
> Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
> including the initial issue submission, for this request,
> not just the latest update.
> Category: TEI: New or Changed Element
>> Group: AMBER
> Status: Open
> Priority: 5
> Private: No
> Submitted By: Sebastian Rahtz (rahtz)
> Assigned to: Lou Burnard (louburnard)
> Summary: make <del> and <add> (etc) dateable
> 
> Initial Comment:
> I am using <del> and <add> to mark changes in a born-digital document, and I know the exact date of the additions and deletions. It seems obvious to me that I should be able to say <add when="2009-11-01">, of course</add>. Can we just add these elements to the dateable class?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> Comment By: Lou Burnard (louburnard)
> Date: 2010-01-15 17:06
> 
> Message:
> Slippery slope warning. The date is presumably unambiguously always the
> date that the addition or deletion was made, rather than the date that it
> was identified by the encoder? So I can say <add
> notAfter="1802">wibble</add> for an addition which I think was made before
> 1802. Of course some bright spark will now ask for the ability to record an
> addition that was (prior to evidence uncovered in 1904) believed to be 19th
> century, but which is actually much older. 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You can respond by visiting: 
> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=644065&aid=2909766&group_id=106328
> 

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)
Half-Baked Software, Inc.
(mholmes at halfbakedsoftware.com)
martin at mholmes.com