[DCRM-L] General

[Jane Gillis]

I agree that we should use just "Comment"

Jane

At 09:06 PM 10/5/2006 Thursday-0400, Deborah J. Leslie wrote:
>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20061006/3c71c646/attachment.htm