Message 2004-10-0200: Re: Article 5

Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:22:09 +0000

[Previous by date - Re: Article 5]
[Next by date - Re: Death of the PhyloCode?]
[Previous by subject - Re: Article 5]
[Next by subject - Re: BioCode and PhyloCode conflicts]

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:22:09 +0000
From: [unknown]
To: david.marjanovic@gmx.at
Cc: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: Article 5

> Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:35:19 +0100
> From: David Marjanovic <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
>
> >  1. If this is held true, the publication _Palaeontologica Electr=
onica_
> > cannot be held to have a published date, as there is not date the=
 "printed
> > matter" was delivered to an receptacle.
>=20
> Under the PhyloCode, PE does not count as published _anyway_,
> because it's not in ink on paper. Article 4
> http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/art4-5.html makes this clear several
> times.

I vote that this is a bug.

If this has been discussed before, will someone please summarise the
arguments that led to this stance?

 _/|_=09 ____________________________________________________________=
___
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org=
.uk
)_v__/\  "The government saved a dying planet where popular icons
=09 failed" -- Sting, "Jeremiah Blues"

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
=09http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/




  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!