I have a hazy recollection of reading or being told that you should use
type="inclusive" for single dates. If there is only one date, it's
inclusive, right? I think that was the logic, although you could argue
that inclusive implies a range.
I'm sending this offlist, as it is based solely on a vague recollection. I
looked at the tag library but I didn't see anything that addressed this
change. If it really vexes you, I'd email Michael Fox or Kris Keisling
directly and ask one of them.
At 10:45 PM 9/28/2005, you wrote:
>No report as such from this tool, I just happened to notice this
>particular issue because I was comparing output from the tool to some
>simple changes I'd made in order to decide how best to do this
>conversion. I don't think it's putting in a default value in this case.
>I do suspect its solution to not being able to use type="single" in
>EAD2002 is to use the datechar attribute. As I mentioned before, I'm not
>sure I like this approach. I'm still wondering if it's safe to assume a
>unitdate is a single date if there's no type attribute.
Michael Rush | [log in to unmask]
Processing Archivist / EAD Coordinator
Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library
P.O. Box 208240
New Haven, CT 06520-8240
Tel: (203) 432-8123 Fax: (203) 432-4047