In the British tradition, the word normally implies a full descriptive summary (often published) in which each document is the subject of a "carefully controlled, rigorously consistent précis".
[2] All significant elements in the text are recorded, so that the great majority of researchers will be spared the need to consult the originals: the completed calendar effectively becomes a substitute for the archival documents, and is often treated as a primary source in its own right.
Trivial or incidental elements ("common form and unnecessary verbiage") are omitted;[2] but all names, dates and significant statements are noted, and passages which appear to the editor to be of particular interest or importance may be quoted in full.
[5]Similarly, Paul Harvey emphasises that the editorial task of calendaring "is not the soft option that editors have sometimes assumed"; and that the process of summarising accurately without error or distortion can be "significantly harder than straightforward editing".
[2] In the North American tradition, a "calendar" generally implies a briefer and more summary list or inventory than in Britain, arranged chronologically.