Mike Ferrando wrote:
> Finally, was the XSLT really "ugly"? I admit that I was in a hurry
> ('current' needed to be 'current()' and the dao template needed a
> xsl:choose to sense the descendant::expan), but your comment seems to
> carry undue criticism. ("as she spoke" ??? What does that mean?)
No criticism intended at all, it's all most ingenious! I was just
thinking it's a shame that we must go so far round the houses for what
seems such a simple need.
I agree that using <archref> like this doesn't fit the tag library's
definition, though the DTD won't object. Perhaps tenuously, we justified
it on the grounds that, for our purposes, the image itself is always of
(or relating to) another object in the archive, so a combination of
embedded image and cross-reference/hyperlink seemed to make sense. Maybe
this is all wrong, though, fortunately, it's not something that's been
much used to-date, and changing the current markup is easily done.
But I'm still wondering, as I think Mark is, how - if at all - EAD's
designers expected inline images to be implemented. Such an insight
would help me and the archivists I'm working with understand a bit
better what we shoud be doing and why.
\ Richard M Davis
/ Digital Archives
\ University of London Computer Centre
/ Tel: +44 (0) 20 7692 1350
\ mailto: [log in to unmask]