https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=20194
David Cook <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #20 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #17) > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #16) > > (In reply to Julian Maurice from comment #15) > > > (In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #12) > > > > I am not sure about the terminology of using Record type - this is > > > > still an > > > > itemtype, just from a different level. I think it gives a wrong idea of > > > > the > > > > usage. > > > > > > Is "Record-level item type" better ? > > > > I like it better, but a native speaker would probably be helpful :) > > That makes sense to me, that is how we refer to it As a native English-speaking librarian, biblioitems.itemtype makes me crazy. I usually say "Bib-level item type" or "Bibliographic-level item type", and then wish that biblioitems.itemtype will be removed from Koha, since "Bib-level item type" is a paradox. The concept makes no sense in a library, and I've had a lot of confused librarians ask me about it over the years. But... I'm sure that it's not going away any time soon. "Record-level item type" doesn't make sense in libraries, but I think it's probably a good enough technical description. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
