This suggests a strong case for retaining the existing (AACR2) rule 1.1B5, at least from the point of view of the user. The publisher too would be alarmed to find that their typographical ingenuity had had such bibliographic consequences. Aside from the fact that it isn't present in the ISBDs, what is the case for abandoning it?
-----Original Message----- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hostage Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [RDA-L] 1.6.6 I have a periodical where the title appears as: Revista de derecho internacional y del Mercosur ----------------------------------------------------- direito internacional e do Mercosul Rule 1.6.6 would have you transcribe it Revista de derecho internacional y del Mercosur direito internacional e do Mercosul. Is this what we want? -- ___________________________________________________________ John Hostage Authorities Librarian Langdell Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harvard Law School Library (617) 495-3974 (voice) Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 496-4409 (fax) http://www.law.harvard.edu/library/ -----------------------------------------------------------
