<html>
<body>
<font size=3>I agree that we should use just "Comment"<br><br>
Jane<br><br>
At 09:06 PM 10/5/2006 Thursday-0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Interesting point. We decided on
"editorial comment" after some<br>
discussion, and it does follow the ISBD convention. I hesitate to
remove<br>
the "editorial" unless I hear from the other editors agreeing
with you.<br>
DCRM editors? <br>
__________________________________________<br>
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.<br>
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee<br>
<a href="http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html" eudora="autourl">
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html</a><br>
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library<br>
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003<br>
djleslie@folger.edu || 202.675-0369 ||
<a href="http://www.folger.edu " eudora="autourl">
http://www.folger.edu </a> <br><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu
[<a href="mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu" eudora="autourl">
mailto:dcrm-l-bounces@lib.byu.edu</a>] On<br>
Behalf Of David Woodruff<br>
Sent: 18 September 2006 14:48<br>
To: dcrm-l@lib.byu.edu<br>
Subject: [DCRM-L] General<br><br>
The phrase "Editorial comment" seems cumbersome. I would
omit<br>
"Editorial." "Comment" by itself is enough to
indicate that what follows<br>
is meta-text, not part of the example that precedes it. Furthermore,<br>
"editorial" isn't quite the right word. The comments don't come
from<br>
independent editors, but from the same people who wrote the rules
and<br>
provided the examples; still less are they editorial comments as
opposed<br>
to the straight news.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>