+1 from me too. The XSLT is done so that only information in your records shows up. I don't see why people would not want that. Katrin * Jared Camins-Esakov (jcamins@cpbibliography.com) wrote:
Paul,
My vote will surprise no one.
in my opinion, it would be nice to have
1) an eventually huge XSLT file. It's probably easier for most people to comment out or tweak things that are already there than to add the "extra" fields they need from scratch.
+1
The other option would quickly make it impossible for people who are concerned about MARC display (people like me, for example) to contribute what you call "bugfixes". I use fields most other libraries do not, so my stylesheets will diverge. Also, I would argue that not displaying as called for in bib standards *is* a bug.
+1 from me also I think following the standard for display (even if I think the standard is mental, it is the standard) is the way to go here.
2) a "local" XSLT file that survives updates unharmed where people can put the files they tweaked to their likings (I think this was talked about while ago, I don't know if it exists already).
This would be nice, but at present it is not possible, and I don't think anyone is working on it.
Not actively, but there are specs, look for something in the new year! Chris -- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand