In 20.05, multiple $t (or $t then $r) entries on the catalog detail page displayed on separate lines within the same 505 tag. On 21.05 they no longer do so - either ' -- ’ has to be added at the end of each $t to force a line break within the same 505, or they need to be separated into multiple 505s. This affects both the staff interface and the OPAC. Bug 19616 indicates that this is a correction rather than a new bug, but it’s an unexpected change in display/behavior nonetheless.
Hi Sara, when I was working on bug 19616 I found no way to keep the existing behaviour and still make the $g display nicely with the subfields it belongs to. XSLT is a bit limiting in what you can do easily and works different to a programming language. I'd be happy if someone could help out here that can make both the old and new behaviour work together.
Say you have several 505 with several $t$r$g, what's the expected behaviour then?
Subfield g, r, t are repeatable, a is not. For defining "items" this is all I could find back then and asusmeed that each item should go on a new line: In records formulated according to AACR 2, a space-hyphen-hyphen-space ( -- ) is recorded between each item in the contents note unless a delimiter/subfield code follows in which case there is no ending space. In pre-AACR 2 records, items are separated by a period-hyphen-hyphen (.--). I am not sure what indications the subfield sequence can give. Here it's tg tg... 505 00$tQuatrain II$g(16:35) --$tWater ways$g(1:57) --$tWaves$g(10:49). But then the next example is already different with gt gt gt: 505 10$gNr. 1.$tRegion Neusiedlersee --$gNr. 2.$tRegion Rosalia/Lithagebirge --$gNr. 3.$tRegion Mettelburgenland --$gNr. 4.$tRegion südliches Burgenland --$gNr. 5.$tRegion Südburgland You'd need to keep the ones corresponding on one line togehter, but if the subfield sequence can change like this, I saw no other option than using the --. Example from LOC documentation: https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd505.html
Maybe this could be a compromise: we check for existence of $g, if there are no $g we break before each $t. Would that work Sara?