Francois Lachance wrote:
> Seeking Clarification
> The proposal as currently stated has two parts.
> 1) introduction of new elements
> 2) elimination of existing elements
> The group that has been working on bibliographic entries for TEI
> proposes that <biblStruct> with its children <analytic>, <monogr>, and
> <series> be replaced by two new elements: <biblItem> and
> Does the introduction require the elimination?
Not if there is a vocal cry for its retention. Though having four
different ways of doing bibliographic records does seem a little like an
excess of riches.
> I ask because the TEI Guidelines offer <bibl>, <biblStruct> and
> <biblFull>. The proposal in its current form focuses upon <biblStruct>.
> Were other options considered? If so what were the pros and cons of
> focussing upon <biblStruct> to the exclusion of <bibl> or <biblFull>?
The original proposal was to introduce a fourth kind of <bibl>, but I
think I am responsible for suggesting that it might be better to
re-consider one of the existing kinds, and the one with which there
seemed most overlap was <biblStruct>. Mulling this over again, I am not
sure whether the group seriously considered using <biblFull> -- this
does already have a nestable structure.