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

Laurent Romary laurent.romary at loria.fr
Sat Jan 16 01:42:28 EST 2010


I add my vote, with the word of caution that this should probably not  
be extended to any element taken at randon in the TEI (cf. the <death  
when> (counter-)example). The ad/del combinaiton with when is  
straightforward, though.
Laurent (from Hong Kong...)

Le 15 janv. 10 à 19:20, Martin Holmes a écrit :

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council



More information about the tei-council mailing list