Should <time> be included in 188.8.131.52 Imprint, Pagination, and Other Details since it can be a child (it can?) of <imprint>?
Currently <imprint> includes in its content model model.dateLike, which includes not only <date> but also <time>. There are actually many elements allowed inside <imprint> which are not currently listed in section 184.108.40.206. I believe that the Guidelines do not always list all elements allowed as children but instead those that are most relevant, but I will check with the rest of Council on this matter.
I see a couple of possible ways forward:
a) Leave things as they are with the understanding that the Guidelines don't list every possible child element and that someone might want to record the time of publication as part of a bibliographic citation.
b) Add a mention of <time> in section 220.127.116.11 for the sake of completeness, perhaps with an example illustrating its use. (Perhaps we can find an example "in the wild" in which someone had a "last updated" string, with a full computer-generated timestamp, as part of a citation.
c) Change the content model of <imprint> to replace model.dateLike with just <date>, assuming that use of model.dateLike here was sloppy and unwarranted and that no one would actually include a time of publication as part of a bibliographic citation.
The @when part of a <date> can of course include a time, so <time> is strictly redundant, unless you want to say something like <time>teatime</time>
It doesn't seem totally implausible that the time should form part of a publication date, so Kevin's option (c) does not appeal to me. I think adding an example using one would be a good idea. I am agnostic about whether or not we need to mention <time> in the <specList> : as Kevin says, there are other elements which we don't mention.
Maybe what is needed is the ability to specify a model class (and its members) within a specList?
Lou wrote to tei-council that we do not always specify all allowed child elements in a specList (which is the part of the ODD that generates a list of elements such as the one near the top of section 18.104.22.168.
Lou's suggestion for specifying a model class within a specList is an interesting one, but it's a whole separate discussion, so I've created a ticket for it: http://purl.org/TEI/FR/3598775 . (I realize, though, that resolution of this ticket might end up waiting till that ticket is resolved.)
John P. McCaskey
By the way, speaking as a Guidelines user, I find it unsettling when an element discussed in the text is not listed in the nearby specList section. When this happens, I doubt my understanding. I go looking. I hesitate. I wonder if there is a bug or I am confused. I put a lot of credence in those sections and get worried when they seem to be missing something.
for what its worth, I have enhanced the display of model classes, so the suggested technique of using model class in a <specList> instead of an explicit list of elements now works.
Okay, so <time> now shows in the prose documentation for <imprint> (as part of model.dateLike). Will close this ticket.