As Bob Stayton has just been kind enough to point out I've managed to make no sense here. Please read this as:
I've just been looking at some XML coming in from a typesetter and noticed some misuse of <extendedlink> elements. Looking at what they were trying to do led me to suspect they should have been using a simple <link> element. Of course, these aren't allowed within bibliomixed elements. So, is there a particular reason why <extendedlink> is allowed within <bibliomixed> when <link> isn't? yours in a vaguely embarrassed manner nic On 3 Jun 2011, at 09:42, Nic Gibson wrote: > I've just been looking at some XML coming in from a typesetter and noticed > some misuse of <extendedlink> elements. Looking at what they were trying to > do led me to suspect they should have been using a simple <link> element. Of > course, these aren't allowed within bibliomisc elements. > > So, is there a particular reason why <extendedlink> is allowed within > <bibliomisc> when <link> isn't? > > cheers > > nic > -- > Nic Gibson > Corbas Consulting > Digital Publishing Consultancy and Training > http://www.corbas.co.uk, +44 (0)7718 906817 > > -- Nic Gibson Corbas Consulting Digital Publishing Consultancy and Training http://www.corbas.co.uk, +44 (0)7718 906817
