Suggestion of renaming the specification elements, and make it more clear about marcspec

[cKlee]

Hi Peter!

These are all great suggestions. I'm a fan of making things more clear. Let's do it.

I also love the concept of self and 'parent'. This was one of the weaknesses of the spec. I think your proposal could work. And there is no problem in mistake the . and .. with ... for wildcards in a field description because field descriptions are always three characters long.

I'm thinking a bit about the quotation marks. I thought I omitted them for a good reason. But this reason does not come to my mind anymore.

I would suggest that I alter the specification in a dev repo, so that we can discuss the changes.

I you have any other suggestions or ideas let me know.

[cKlee]

@pkiraly see #26 for discussion of the fieldTag definition.

[cKlee]

@pkiraly you specified

subfieldChar       = alphaupper
                  / alphalower
                  / DIGIT

Does MARC21 allow alphaupper chars for subfield codes?

[cKlee]

@pkiraly Same question like #26:

Should MARCspec support ANSI/ISO for subfield codes?

My suggestion:

subfieldChar      = %x21-3F / %x5B-7B / %x7D-7E
                      ; ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0-9 : ; < = > ? [ \ ] ^ _ \` a-z { } ~

Your suggestion

subfieldChar       = alphaupper
              / alphalower
              / DIGIT