This is the mail archive of the
docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
mailing list for the DocBook project.
[docbook] No year of publication for biblioentry
- From: Aidan Lister <aidanis at gmail dot com>
- To: docbook at lists dot oasis-open dot org
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:05:00 +1100
- Subject: [docbook] No year of publication for biblioentry
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oEUvIWmL/nuqsQgSfEKRtOBRoTalUrW/jdDxukOgsbYdlXXzYQw9quV74wsEvu/rdSsHupNvnm7K92RuPk25c5eaomkONLyG6SDnIRH5We5m7a+ASd1oEpfJK2ySL3P8U835fA7BigWw3cqjoxuYO9xcosUHvNrJEHVG90eczUI=
- Reply-to: Aidan Lister <aidanis at gmail dot com>
I'm converting a set of papers - about 60 in total - from a custom XML
format (we used whatever tags we thought appropriate) to DocBook.
It's been a long and sometimes painful process, but the result is
worth the effort.
I have a couple of problems, but I'll try to address them one by one
when I'm sure I can't find the solution via other means.
Here's the first:
There's no year of publication element in a biblioentry. Here's a
sample biblioentry:
<biblioentry>
<title>Interface morphology development during stress corrosion
cracking: Part I, via surface diffusion.</title>
<authorgroup>
<author><firstname>R.</firstname><surname>Asaro</surname></author>
<author><firstname>W.</firstname><surname>Tiller</surname></author>
</authorgroup>
<pagenums>1789-1796</pagenums>
</biblioentry>
The year the book was published is very important, as later additions
may not include the correct pages. I can see this being especially
important when citing online work.
A simple <year> tag would be fine, I think. Unless there's a good
reason to add a new element, <yearofpub>, however I think it's
unwarranted.
In the book, I see something like: <copyright><year>1997</year> ..
other info</copyright>. Although I could possibly use this, it's
hardly accurate.
Could this be added into the spec? Is there a workaround? Is there any
reason I shouldn't be doing this?
Kind Regards,
Aidan