You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
IIRC, the general idea was that MetaDatum and MetaDatumBlock are more-or-less exclusive, that is, one "Element" in the imprint is either a MetaDatum with a MetaDatumLabel and a MetaDatumValue, or a MetaDatumBlock. Both elements can however be inside a broader MetaDatumBlock, which in the standard definition is already the case for imprint as a whole, see ll.1180-1195 in coco-title.dtx. Think of MetaDatumBlock as an "recursively embeddable" container, while MetaDatum is a container for a key-value pair. It is however true that the cited declaration of the copyright Property should contain a P tag for the actual text. (MetaDatumValue and MetaDatumLabel don't need an extra P, as they are already mapped to P.)
There is no real convention yet on what to do with "label-less" meta data… We could also tag them as MetaDatum instead of MetaDatumBlock and a simple P inside… I'm open to suggestions.
Shouldn't
rather look like this:
?
And/Or should the
MetaDatumBlock
rather span the whole\ccSetProperty{publisher}
or even\ccSetProperty{imprint}
?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: