letters dated to decade, not year about vmcp-upconversion

[Conal-Tuohy]

NB at present the date of the correspondence is extracted from the filename (the folder name is ignored). Dates which have zeros in the month or day places are understood to represent years, or months, respectively.
https://github.com/Conal-Tuohy/VMCP-upconversion/blob/master/xslt/extract-metadata.xsl#L308
The question of how dates are presented to users is something which is much more open in scope; not using XTF for the final publication platform means we have many different options, and I think this is best left until after the first revision of the public website is live (i.e. it should be part of the "public v2" iteration).

[LucasHorseshoeBend]

Conal, I am going to go through each of your e-mails now, and then go through the remaining issues on the GitHub page, then consider anything else of a coding nature of which I have become aware For this one, issue # 44, the key is the style named number, which you interpret correctly. We are gradually redating many of these items as we now have access to better dating tools than when we first did some of these before the WWW (!!) and there will be few left dated only to decade. So I agree that this can be left: its not a coding issue per se. At worst, editors will just need to add a footnote to letters that remain dated only to decade. Best wishes Arthur

…

On 17 Feb 2021, at 05:39, Conal Tuohy ***@***.***> wrote: NB at present the date of the correspondence is extracted from the filename (the folder name is ignored). Dates which have zeros in the month or day places are understood to represent years, or months, respectively. https://github.com/Conal-Tuohy/VMCP-upconversion/blob/master/xslt/extract-metadata.xsl#L308 <https://github.com/Conal-Tuohy/VMCP-upconversion/blob/master/xslt/extract-metadata.xsl#L308> The question of how dates are presented to users is something which is much more open in scope; not using XTF for the final publication platform means we have many different options, and I think this is best left until after the first revision of the public website is live (i.e. it should be part of the "public v2" iteration). — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#44 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF3IGTXOI44M5WUCI37ZFXDS7NJBFANCNFSM4EKRGZKQ>.

[LucasHorseshoeBend]

We can close this issue.

We have redated most of the items originally dated to decade only. Although we have a few from 1880s, and more from the 1890s left to work up, I live in hopes that we can do the same with the remaining ones before they are made final and thus be included in the public presentation version. We are using in the notes a formulation like dated to yyyy as the likely latest/earliest date it could have been written Any residual ones will have a clear statement in the footnotes, and the broad dating will not be a problem in identification.