We did identify the discrepancy between "pages" and "pp" in our 
currently-being-worked-on revisions to bibl/biblStruct and friends, so 
that should be dealt with as part of the process. I'd agree with adding 
"col". The issue of sing/pl hadn't occurred to me, but you're right; we 
should either recommend:

  - Both singular and plural values (p, pp, col, cols), or

  - Only one, but be consistent and specify that it covers both singular 
and plural; where @from and @to are used, plural can be assumed.

I think I prefer the latter.

Cheers,
Martin

On 10-09-10 07:17 AM, Syd Bauman wrote:
> Good point. But actually, it's worse than you think (or at least,
> than you mention). The source ODD reads
>
>        <desc>identifies the type of information conveyed by the
>        element, e.g.<val>columns</val>,<val>pages</val>,
>        <val>volume</val>.</desc>
>
> implying that "pages" is a possible value of type=, not the thing to
> which the value refers. This is problematic, as now the Guidelines
> are suggesting two different values for the concept "pages" (because
> the actual suggested value for pages is 'pp').
>
> So at the very least, either the<val>  phrase-level elements should
> be removed from the<desc>, or they should be brought in line with
> the suggested value list. (And in either case, the concept of
> "columns" should probably be present.)
>
> But furthermore, the suggested value list is inexplicably
> inconsistent with respect to number: some glosses of suggested values
> indicate singular, some plural.
>
> Moreover, the from= and to= attributes explicitly refer to that which
> is indicated by the type= attribute as a 'unit' ... so shouldn't the
> type= attribute really be a unit= attribute?
>
>
>> the description of biblScope/@type reads "identifies the type of
>> information conveyed by the element, e.g. columns, pages, volume" -
>> so shouldn't "col" be added to the list of suggestd values?
> .
>

-- 
Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
([log in to unmask])