#702 Note in element description of <back>

[Elizabeth Lorang]

The note at the end of the of the element description for <back> is not at all a useful note, and it raises more questions than it answers: "The content model of back matter is identical to that of front matter, reflecting the facts of cultural history." I don't think it contributes usefully to the element description and should either be expanded or (probably preferably) deleted.</back>

[Martin Holmes]

This note appears to be a shortened and confusing version of what appears in the prose of 4.7:

Conventions vary as to which elements are grouped as back matter and which as front. For example, some books place the table of contents at the front, and others at the back. Even title pages may appear at the back of a book as well as at the front. The content model for back and front elements are therefore identical.

This dates back at least as far as P4, and so does the note. I agree that it's unhelpful as it is, but it is worth making the point that back and front have a close relationship and identical content models. I vote that the note be expanded to make it comprehensible, rather than deleted.

[Elizabeth Lorang]

Yes, the 4.7 note is much clearer, and I agree that with a note more along the lines of the 4.7 version, the information is quite useful--so, I change my thinking from preferring deletion to preferring a richer note along these lines.

[Syd Bauman]

Addressed in revision 13123.