 |
 |
Helena, I think, for our purposes, that the <odd> will work, and that David's solution of using a label attribute on a <note> is also a reasonable workaround if I need the note inside the <did> or elsewhere where <odd>s are not allowed. It still seems a little confusing to have both a general purpose <note> "for additional information" as well as the <odd> for things that don't fit into the defined categories. Is there some practical difference? Anyway, I'm satisfied to just use the <odd> for this old database. Thanks for the explanation! _____________________________________________________________________________ MacKenzie Smith [log in to unmask] Office for Information Systems (617)495-3724 Harvard University Library %\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Helena Zinkham wrote: > > > > > > The April Berkeley discussion on <note> was pretty long. Having thought, > > too, that <note> with a <head> was useful, here's why I, at least, agreed > > to give it up in the end .... each example we thought of could have been > > handled with another tag that seemed more specific about the content of > > the data. Sharon Thibodeau recalled the "Other Descriptive Data" tag > > (although that means shifting some data to later sequence in a finding aid > > text ... after ScopeContent and AdminInfo), and also the <frontmatter> tag > > for prefatory information about how to use a finding aid or overview of > > what it covers. > > > > It's very useful and interesting to hear how attractive the <note> element > > appears. Although you've found a work-around through the label attribute, > > would the <odd> or <frontmatter> tags also suffice for your circumstances? > > > > Does it concern many people that large chunks of finding aid texts might > > be tagged as <note> with a <head>? (Maybe others who were at Berkeley > > could describe more of the advantages to a headless note, or, when Daniel > > gets back from vacation we can hear more.) > > > > -- Helena > > > > > MacKenzie Smith wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm writing a conversion program for an old DataEase database into > > > > EAD-encoded finding aids, and need to use <note> elements for > > > > general purpose fields that probably should go into <bioghist> or > > > > <scopecontent> kinds of elements but can't because we don't know > > > > for sure without manually looking at their contents. In the draft > > > > tag library it says you can have <head> elements in <note>s, and > > > > an earlier beta version of the DTD allowed this, but the newest > > > > one does not. Was that a conscious decision? Or a mistake in the > > > > new DTD? It seems pretty useful to me to have headings available > > > > in note elements, don't you think? > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > MacKenzie Smith [log in to unmask] > > > > Office for Information Systems (617)495-3724 > > > > Harvard University Library %\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\% > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Helena Zinkham phone: (202) 707-2922 > > Prints & Photographs Div. fax: (202) 707-6647 > > Library of Congress email: [log in to unmask] > > Washington, DC 20540-4840