- From: Jim O'Donnell <jim@eatyourgreens.org.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:04:22 +0000
Hi Robert On 12 Mar 2009, at 02:53, Robert J Burns wrote: > Since you keep repeating the following example (by copy and paste?) > I will mention that you have the year wrong in one place or the > other (1731 and 1732). Dates only diverge by years between Julian > and Gregorian many millions of years in the future or past or in BC > if using eras that insert a zero year into the calendar. Since > we're not even proposing the ability to change eras, we should > assume the same era for both calendars (in any event that only > applies to BCE/BC dates). I used that example since it's the Julian date example used in the TEI docs for the <date> element. Happy to give other examples but that one seems to nicely demonstrate historical dates. Just one correction. 1 January was not adopted as the start of a new year until 1752. Hence Jan, Feb, Mar 1731 in the Julian Calendar are Jan, Feb, Mar 1732 in the calendar we use now (Gregorian). On the issue of the calendar attribute, I suggested that as it's already present in TEI-encoded documents. TEI is in wide use by archives and libraries to digitise historical text and the calendar attribute is familiar to TEI authors. Obviously, the semantic info captured by TEI is lost when documents are transformed to HTML in order for publication online. I thought it would be useful to retain this semantic information in HTML but, as I also said, it isn't essential, Regards Jim Jim O'Donnell jim at eatyourgreens.org.uk http://eatyourgreens.org.uk http://flickr.com/photos/eatyourgreens http://twitter.com/pekingspring -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090312/b76aa279/attachment.htm>
Received on Thursday, 12 March 2009 01:04:22 UTC