<html>
<body>
<font size=3>Since the default AACR/LCRI/ISBD(A)* standard for
transcription is "facilities available", and since the
"MARC 8 character set" is still the industry standard for
facilities that you ought to have, I tried to follow that up myself. I
gather that this phrase now should be understood to point us to ISO
Z39.47-1993(R2003). Or maybe not--it's rather elusive for a
non-techie.<br><br>
Anyway, has there been any follow-up with LC regarding whatever changes
in their treatment of ligatures/digraphs might have led to the deletion
of the sentence? (Perhaps no changes, so that the sentence was deleted as
superfluous?) I note that "ligatures" is still in the LCRI
index, pointing to 1.0E, but I haven't located any use of it other than
that one, now gone. There is indeed nothing specific to
"ligatures" in AAACR2.<br><br>
I wonder if this isn't simply a slough of uncertainty on the road from
ASCIIville to Unicotopia...<br><br>
</font><tt>RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY :
BROWN UNIVERSITY<br>
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 :
RICHARD_NOBLE@BROWN.EDU <br><br>
</tt><font size=3>*Which reads, anent ligatures: "The spelling of
words taken from the publication is preserved, but ligatures and other
contemporary forms of letters and diacritics may be transcribed in their
current forms when the contemporary form is not available to the
cataloguing agency." (ISBD(A) 0.6)<br><br>
At 12/20/2007 12:14 PM, Deborah Leslie
wrote:<br><br></font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<ul>
<ul>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2>As far as we can discover, AACR2
gives no guidance on digraphs. (One of us thought she had found an AACR2
instruction to separate all ligatures, but now cannot find it and wonders
if she imagined it.) </font>
</ul>
</ul><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Georgia" size=3>The above excerpt is from a message I
wrote</font> <font face="Georgia" size=3>to DCRM-L</font>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>on 22 Feb. 2005, the first of a thread
entitled</font> <font face="Georgia" size=3>“Reconsidering
digraphs.”</font> <font face="Georgia" size=3>I of course am the</font>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>“she” referred to and persist in my old
tricks.</font> <br><br>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>Richard Noble is right: we are now left with
no</font> <font face="Georgia" size=3>AACR2</font>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>or LCRI</font>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>guidance on what to do with digraphs.
For DCRM(B), we</font> <font face="Georgia" size=3>will use the rules
there that correspond with the old LCRI. But for modern books?</font>
<font face="Georgia" size=3>I want to tell my cataloger-in-training to
separate an AE digraph in a Latin word, but on what
grounds?</font></blockquote></body>
</html>