Closed ronaldtse closed 6 years ago
I disagree that doctype is overridden by scope + mandate; I think it is only mandate.
Cf in ISO:
BibItemType |=
"international-standard" | "technical-specification" |
"technical-report" | "publicly-available-specification" |
"international-workshop-agreement" | "guide"
And in CSD:
BibItemType |= "governance" | "standard" | "guide"
I don't see why we need 5*3 types, when we're already encoding scope anyway; only mandate is comparable to the other standards.
I propose: standard (for "mandatory), recommendation (for "recommended"), "guidelines"
I'm not suggesting we do 5*3 types -- I'm saying that we already have mandate and scope so we don't need doctype anymore.
Are you proposing we re-purpose the ISO BibItemType terms when used with GB for GB mandate like this mapping?
ISO | GB |
---|---|
"international-standard" => "standard" | "standard" |
"guide" | "guidelines" |
?? | "recommendation" |
Well, that's what I thought you wanted, and that would make "recommendation" a new standard type. But if you're ok to stick with "standard" and "guide", that's fine by me. But we do need a doctype value to put into bibdata.
Sure, let's go with it then. New "recommendation" is good with me. I wonder if we should just rename "international-standard" to "standard", since an ISO "standard" is by definition an "international-standard" anyway.
I'm not sure if the meaning of ISO "guide" is identical to "guidelines"?
No, the wording "international standard" is prescribed by ISO, so we should not change it there.
The IsoDoc
doctype
attribute is superseded by the GB combination of:It is currently inherited from asciidoctor-iso, but we should remove the
doctype
attribute from asciidoctor-gb.