My guess is that we felt that "date" was rather an ambiguous concept.
In this case, <docDate> would clearly be wrong, since it is defined as
holding the date something visibly claims to have been written on.
If I understand the use case correctly, it sounds like a kind of title
-- this is the item relating to this date (sermon for the 3rd sunday
after Pentecost, kind of thing). So I'd tag it as a <date> inside a
<title>. But James's suggestion works too.
On 16/08/11 17:51, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
> Dear James (cc TEI-L),
> Thank you for the quick response. Whatever were we thinking when we left that out?! Sigh ...
> On Aug 16, 2011, at 11:53 AM, "James Cummings"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 16/08/11 15:10, Birnbaum, David J wrote:
>>> Dear TEI-L,
>>> I'm preparing a P5 manuscript description of a menologion, a
>>> medieval collection of readings associated with specific
>>> calendar dates (month and day of the month). When I look at
>>> the contents permitted in<msItemStruct> (as well as<msItem>),
>>> I don't see<date>. What is the P5-approved way to indicate
>>> that a particular reading is associated with a particular date
>>> of the year?
>> I would probably embed them in a<note> with a @type attribute
>> indicating the special nature of this note, a formulaic phrasing
>> and an child<date> element. I'm not saying that is at all a good
>> solution, but probably what I would do because using<docDate>,
>> which is allowed, seems somehow more abusive or non-standard.
>> I've not got a good solution.
>> Dr James Cummings, InfoDev,
>> Computing Services, University of Oxford