There was some discussion about possible ways of improving biblStruct, 
but I am not aware of any persuasive arguments for removing it.

It's on the agenda for discussion at the next TEI Council meeting in a 
couple of weeks, so now would be a good time for the opponents of 
biblStruct (if such there be lurking on this list) to speak up.


Martin Holmes wrote:
> I wasn't aware of this. I use biblStruct a lot in P4, and I'd like to 
> retain it in P5 unless biblItem is essentially doing the same job with 
> the same structure. I have a lot of code invested in turning biblStructs 
> into MLA-style references in PDF and XHTML. I really wouldn't want to be 
> rewriting that if I could avoid it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> Peter Boot wrote:
> 
>>The current state of P5 includes both biblItem and biblStruct (and its
>>children analytic, monogr and series). I don't think the documentation
>>says anything about biblStruct and its children being on the way out. In
>>the discussion on TEI-L in 2004, however, biblItem was introduced as a
>>possible replacement for biblStruct, rather than as a new element.
>>François asked about the need to remove the 'old' biblStruct, to which Lou
>>replied: 'Not if there is a vocal cry for its retention'.
>>
>>I myself seem to have been to only one to have said (on this list) that
>>biblStruct should be retained. I wouldn't especially like having to go
>>back to the people I explained the biblStructs to and tell them we're
>>going to do it differently from now on. It's hard enough to win people
>>over to text encoding without this type of change.
>>
>>So what is the current status on this? Has it been decided to remove
>>biblStruct in P5?
>>
>>Peter
> 
> 
>