The first one is the correct version of the EAD Formal Public Identifier.
The latter may have existed in early drafts of EAD 2002.
From: Encoded Archival Description List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: which ead doctype?
The current discussion of XMetal and EAD DOCTYPEs has reminded me to ask
the list something I've been wondering about for some time. I see two
versions of the EAD2002 DOCTYPE floating around out there:
<!DOCTYPE ead PUBLIC "+//ISBN 1-931666-00-8//DTD ead.dtd (Encoded
Archival Description (EAD) Version 2002)//EN" "ead.dtd">
<!DOCTYPE ead PUBLIC "-//Society of American Archivists//DTD ead.dtd
(Encoded Archival Description (EAD) Version 2002)//EN" "ead.dtd">
We've been using the latter, since a doctype with an ISBN struck me as
funny (although the encoded examples on the EAD site use the former,
with the ISBN). Is the former really the correct one? If so, where did
the latter one come from? What's the deal with the ISBN?
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Wells Library E170
Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com