#632 sloppy language in specs for att.datable.w3c and att.datable.iso
I see that http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datable.w3c.html makes multiple references to "the W3C XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition". We should also add a link to this document: it appears to be at http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ .
At times the reference to this document is accompanied by one of the following:
a) "temporal expression"
b) "W3C date, time, and date & time formats"
c) "using the Gregorian calendar"
We should be a bit more consistent in our language. Specifically:
a) The W3C recommendation doesn't use the term "temporal expression", so perhaps we should replace this with "the primitive datatypes defined in Appendix D".
b) I suspect "date & time" is supposed to refer to what the W3C recommendation calls "dateTime".
b) "using the Gregorian calendar" seems redundant since as far as I can tell the W3C recommendation refers only to the Gregorian calendar.
Furthermore, I suggest that at http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datable.iso.html we drop the phrase "Any string representing a valid date, time, or one of a variety of combinations." since it's misleading given that it's followed by a note: "The value of the when-iso attribute should be the normalized representation of the date, time, or combined date & time intended, in any of the standard formats specified by ISO 8601, using the Gregorian calendar."
Assigning to Syd Bauman to triage and review.
Not Appendix D, surely; Appendix E (datatypes and macros).
Council discussion group believes that the reference to the Gregorian calendar should be retained for clarity; many people do not realize that by using these datatypes they are also choosing the Gregorian calendar.
Yes, agreed. There were 25 occurrences of the title of XML Schema
Part 2 in the Guidelines, some of which had "Second Edition" and
some of which did not. All now have "Second Edition" and point to
the bibliography.
I also found 13 direct links to the general URL of that document,
as follows.
* ST-Infrastructure.xml: refers generally -- fixed to point to
bibliography.
* metDecl.xml: refers specifically to appendix F ("#regexs")
* SA-LinkingSegmentationAlignment.xml: refers to "an appendix",
which, not surprisingly, is also F ("#regexs")
* CO-CoreElements.xml: refers to the 8 specific datatypes directly:
#date
#gYear
#gMonth
#gDay
#gYearMonth
#gMonthDay
#time
#dateTime
* SG-GentleIntroduction.xml: refers generally -- fixed to point to
bibliography.
I also found 4 direct links to the URL of a particular version
of that document, as follows.
* BIB: appropriate
* data.duration.w3c.xml: refers specifically to #duration, the
duration datatype
I will open a new FR ticket to discuss how we should handle the
remaining references.
I disagree. On a quick review of occurrences, we use "temporal
expression" completely appropriately. The one possible exception
(perhaps the one Kevin had in mind) is in the description of
data.temporal.iso and data.temporal.w3c. There the phrase is correctly
used, but arguably we could be more precise, e.g.:
defines the range of attribute values used to normalize a temporal
expression to the international standard ...
I have not made this change, but will put it into a new ticket so that
Council will consider it.
Kevin is correct, the W3C name for the datatype that expresses a date
and time within that date (i.e., what in English is referred to as a
"date and time") is "dateTime". I don't know if Kevin is implying that
the TEI Guidelines should also say "dateTime" here, but they certainly
should not. a) The phrases in question are written in English and
refer to the concept, not in standardese referring to the datatype. b)
One of the phrases in question is talking about ISO formats, not W3C
formats.
This issue is "closed-wont-fix" as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, it is redundant. But it is a good idea to be redundant here, as
many scholars don't realize that using W3C date formats implies use of
the Gregorian system. You can use proleptic Gregorian in these
formats, though, and perhaps we should say that. I plan to open a new
ticket so Council can consider adding a phrase about proleptic
Gregorian.
Not sure what Kevin is referring to here. That phrase does not appear
in att.datable.iso, and has not since before the bug report was
submitted. I did not find it anywhere in the current GLs (but did not
look through the whole GLs historically, just in att.datable.iso).
This issue is "closed-works-for-me" as far as I'm concerned.
For the record ...
Point (a), regarding "temporal expression", was indeed meant to refer to data.temporal.iso, whose text used to appear within ref-att.datable.iso.html by inclusion (see, for example, http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/2.5.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datable.iso.html ). It no longer appears at ref-att.datable.iso.html, but raising a new ticket is fine if Syd feels we could be more precise.
As for the phrase "Any string representing a valid date, time,
or one of a variety of combinations.", it used to appear within within ref-att.datable.iso.html by inclusion (see, for example, http://www.tei-c.org/Vault/P5/2.5.0/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.datable.iso.html ). It no longer appears at ref-att.datable.iso.html, so it's no longer a concern to me.