So do you recommend removing the era attribute entirely? Or just
leaving it at CE and ignoring it?
thank you,
Holly
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Ethan Gruber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Holly,
>
> BC dates can be represented as negative numbers according to ISO 8601. The
> text node of unitdate can have anything in it, so your last example is what
> I would recommend doing (2000-2010 is misleading when you actually mean 2000
> BC). The era attribute is probably unnecessary. Keep in mind that years
> have to be four digits, so 300 BC needs to be -0300 in the @normal.
>
> Ethan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Holly Deakyne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> My date range is from 2000BCE-2010CE. I'm using a form to create the
>> XML, but this form does not support BCE dates so it has to be edited
>> by hand.
>>
>>
>> This is what the XML looks like now:
>>
>> <unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
>> normal="2000/2010" era="ce" calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
>>
>>
>>
>> Would I do this?
>>
>> <unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
>> normal="2000/2010" era="bce/ce"
>> calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
>>
>>
>> Or also add a negative:
>>
>> <unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
>> normal="-2000/2010" era="bce/ce"
>> calendar="gregorian">2000-2010</unitdate>
>>
>>
>> Could I add to the text:
>>
>> <unitdate type="inclusive" label="Dates:" encodinganalog="245$f"
>> normal="-2000/2010" era="bce/ce" calendar="gregorian">2000 BCE-2010
>> CE</unitdate>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mostly I think the era is wrong. How would I state this? Break it up
>> into two somehow?
>>
>>
>> thank you,
>> Holly Deakyne
>
>
|
