Lists Home |
Date Index |
W. E. Perry scripsit:
> Not exactly. Your Cicero/Tully example might illustrate nothing more than
> nominative anti-translationism, but the C.E./A.D. question, like your earlier AUC
> versus gDate, goes to a much deeper problem of locating the point of transition
> from syntax to semantics.
But the C.E. and A.D. calendars are no more distinct than Cicero and Tully;
it is a matter of preferring one or the other of two equally correct labels.
Would you balk at my annotating the measurement "one inch" (measured in
2002, to be precise) with "2.54 cm", given that one inch is *defined*
since 1958 as 2.54 cm exactly?
> The algorithm applied in both C.E. and A.D. processing may be
> equivalent, though as you point out the two calculations are grounded in
> different first principles.
I point out nothing of the sort. In fact they are grounded on the same first
principles, and differ only in name. There is no independent specification
of the Common Era distinct from A.D.
> There is also, from a purely markup point of view, a problem of non-parallelism
> in your original
> <date gDate="-43-03-13">the ides of March, 710 A.U.C.</date>
> between element content stated with its proper units, mapped in markup to an
> attribute naming different units with that attribute's (and those units')
> explicitly lexical value.
This is overspecified, and I don't understand the ground of your objection.
Do you not like the non-parallelism between element content and attribute
value, or are we back to the calendrical objection again.
John Cowan <email@example.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_