I stab 'em, you slab 'em

[beatnik_a_go_go]

Comments

[fencerlitdiva]

From a cataloguing standpoint, I gotta say that page is pretty handy. From a rare-book/collector's standpoint, I'm going to place a vote for it as well, since it makes life easier in terms of knowing as much as possible about the book. Online information is useful to a point, but what will you leave future generations with in terms of looking up online information? Merely the title/author/publisher? That can get tricky depending on how in-depth you want to go. Consider various editions of the same book, theoretically without any information to distinguish one from the other. There could come a time when that would matter to someone, and searching online wouldn't necessarily indicate which copy/edition one had in hand

[beatnik_a_go_go]

I concur! And I have a feeling we'll go with more rather than less info on the CIP page if possible. There have been times when we've had to run a CYA line because the LOC did not give IUP the CIP PDQ, and that P'd me O. I just wondered if it still mattered to Next Gen librarians ;)

Incidentally, I've seen in some uber-designed books where the CIP page is placed in the back of the book, almost like a colophon, and I have to say I rather liked that. It frees up another page in the front matter to funkify, design-wise, and the CIP is still easy to find. CIP pages are, well, kind of ugly typographically speaking.

[violi]

I always have to vote in favor of more information. The easier to solve problems with I say.

[beatnik_a_go_go]

Yeah, mos' def. I hope we don't go with the CYA line just to make it easy on the editors. (Editors thrive on difficulty!) I do know some presses go with the CYA line as a matter of course, but I think that's weird too.