On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Steven Mandeville-Gamble wrote:
> have been informed that this is not acceptable practice in
> terms of ARUP.
I'd be interested in hearing for which ARUP this is not acceptable
practice. I have been tagging some Bentley finding aids and have, with a
few variations in attributes, used the nested <C0x> tags almost exactly
as Steven has. This approach makes much more sense to me, especially
given the nested nature of the information contained in the container
listing of a finding aid, than the <drow>/<dentry> approach to these
As Steven points out in his message, the nested <C0x> tags provide the
capability of preserving contextual relationships as the container
listing unfolds. Perhaps since I haven't yet tried to use it I really
don't understand the <drow>/<dentry> approach. It seems somehow
fundamentally in conflict with SGML in that it appears, at least to me,
that it is encoding layout rather than the relationships between tagged
pieces of text in a finding aid.
I'd love to hear more discussion about how people are approaching the
tagging of container listings and why they've chosen the approach they're
Also, while I'm pecking away at my keyboard, is anyone utilizing the
Encoding Analog attributes? I'm very interested in experimenting with
being able to encode MARC analogs for some of the EAD tags, but I can't
find any guidance on this in the tag library that I have (Oct. 1996). Is
there any more recent documentation on this?
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-Bill Landis | JSTOR Production Coordinator-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
"All landscapes eventually turn to land,
the gold of the imagination to the lead of the reality."
V.S. Naipaul | The Mimic Men
[log in to unmask] | 313 936.2363-_-