You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I wonder if there is an argument to have more specific "date" fields to make support of features easier, and move the logic into the metadata work. As has come up in discussions with "archival date" vs iso.
For example, one approach could be "date" field is always just a sort of free form field, the template does NOT try to parse it. To get the timeline to generate you will need to add a "date_iso" column with properly formatted iso dates (or even just "date_year"). This way the template wouldn't have to worry about parsing multiple date formats and sanitizing issues to avoid breakage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I wonder if there is an argument to have more specific "date" fields to make support of features easier, and move the logic into the metadata work. As has come up in discussions with "archival date" vs iso.
For example, one approach could be "date" field is always just a sort of free form field, the template does NOT try to parse it. To get the timeline to generate you will need to add a "date_iso" column with properly formatted iso dates (or even just "date_year"). This way the template wouldn't have to worry about parsing multiple date formats and sanitizing issues to avoid breakage.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: