Hi Elisa! Thanks for reading my post. Personally I'd prefer not to go into nitty-gritty on this post, and only go into detailed explanations if someone asks. I don't think any of the attributes involved except perhaps @confidence make sense on <time>, and @confidence makes lots of sense on lots of things we don't put it on. (To be specific, atLeast=, atMost=, min=, max=, and quantity= are numbers, not durations; unit= and precision= are already expressed in the normalized value (e.g., when-iso=); scope= would only make sense if a <time> element were used to report a summary of observations of duration, which seems very unlikely; and extent= ... well, I suppose someday somebody might want a floppy way to express loose regularizations of durations, but it's hard to envision.) As for the annoying side note, I don't think <persona> is relevant, as it is not a member of att.dimensions, so we could not remove it from that class.
Hi Syd— I wonder if <time> is likely to raise questions, and whether people might want a little more explanation: Can we provide a better explanation of why this set of attributes isn’t appropriate for time? (I think we must have been considering <time> as analogous to <date>, but in the Guidelines we do use it to express duration which certainly seems a matter of measurement, so I’m now puzzling over why we were so confident this set of attributes shouldn’t apply to <time>.)
Also, just an annoying sidenote, but <persona> wasn’t on the list we reviewed on the ticket, though I don’t think it should be a problem to remove it. Perhaps that just merits a small sidenote in the explanation, as in: <persona> was not on the list of elements we originally discussed but discovered as Council investigated the issue.