[DCRM-L] General

[Deborah J. Leslie]

Interesting point. We decided on "editorial comment" after some
discussion, and it does follow the ISBD convention. I hesitate to remove
the "editorial" unless I hear from the other editors agreeing with you.
DCRM editors? 
__________________________________________
Deborah J. Leslie, M.A., M.L.S.
Chair, RBMS Bibliographic Standards Committee
http://www.folger.edu/bsc/index.html
Head of Cataloging, Folger Shakespeare Library
201 East Capitol St., S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003
djleslie at folger.edu || 202.675-0369 || http://www.folger.edu   

-----Original Message-----
From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of David Woodruff
Sent: 18 September 2006 14:48
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] General

The phrase "Editorial comment" seems cumbersome. I would omit
"Editorial." "Comment" by itself is enough to indicate that what follows
is meta-text, not part of the example that precedes it. Furthermore,
"editorial" isn't quite the right word. The comments don't come from
independent editors, but from the same people who wrote the rules and
provided the examples; still less are they editorial comments as opposed
to the straight news.