On 31/08/16 11:20, Patrick McAllister wrote:
> You might also want to look at the discussion here:
>  Towards the end, it looks like
> @ref is going to become a valid attribute for <bibl/>.

Yes, I remember we discussed this at the last face to face 
council meeting.  I think I was mildly hesitant about it because 
I already see solutions, which while they add extra markup seem 
reasonable to me. (For example, marking the whole short-citation 
in a <ref>, using just a <ptr/> for the reference (where 
suitable), using <ref> inside <bibl> surrounding some parts of 
it, or indeed using <author> and <title> both of which have a 
@ref attribute, depending on the sort of citation system that is 
being used.  That said, I do know a project that uses @corresp 
exactly in the same way people are proposing to use bibl/@ref so 
maybe it is a good idea. But looks like consensus was reached and 
it is fairly straightforward so it will probably be in the next 

> For the time being, I currently use the somewhat verbose `<bibl><ref
> target="#theBibl">Baxter, 1983</ref></bibl>', because it expands nicely
> to use cases like `<bibl><ref target="#theBibl">Baxter,
> 1983</ref><citedRange unit="page">1--3</citedRange></bibl>'.  If you
> don't need the `citedRange' information, I also think that `<ref
> target="#xyz" type="bibl"/>' would be your simplest solution.

I think that the first two examples are perfectly clear markup 
and what I would do. (Though there is nothing wrong with just the 
<ref> either.)

Just putting in my two pence,


Dr James Cummings, Academic IT Services, University of Oxford, 
TEI Consultations: [log in to unmask]