subtitles missing from co-access interim pages, when they are present in 'subtitle' tags in the submitted metadata.
Background
Our stated best practice is that subtitles should be submitted in a distinct tag, not grouped together with the primary title in the tags.
There are a variety of metadata retrieval contexts where we basically ignore the existence of subtitles that are submitted in a way that's consistent with that best practice, for example: metadata_search#57 https://crossref.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/CR/issues/CR-1064
This was also true in the pre-chooser version of co-access interim pages, but because it's been reported by a member now, this seems like the right home for the issue.
Observed behavior
Duke University Press noted this behavior for their book chapters, and wanted to know whether it was intentional.
For example
the title for this chapter DOI 10.1215/9781478027157-007 was deposited as:
<titles>
<title>
Are
<i>We</i>
Ethical Subjects?
</title>
<subtitle>Seeing Ourselves in Shapeshifting Ethics</subtitle>
</titles>
On its interim page, the title displays as "Are We Ethical Subjects?"
Similarly, the chapter title for 10.1215/9781478027157-008 was deposited as:
<titles>
<title>
<i>Bem-Estar Negra</i>
</title>
<subtitle>
<i>Lésbicas Negras’</i>
Beautiful Experiments of Worth
</subtitle>
</titles>
On its interim page, it displays as just "Bem-Estar Negra"
Expected behavior
When the title is submitted as
in the xml, it should be displayed as title:subtitle on the co-access interim pagee.g. the chapters above should be "Are We Ethical Subjects?: Seeing Ourselves in Shapeshifting Ethics" and "Bem-Estar Negra: Lésbicas Negras’ Beautiful Experiments of Worth"
Basically we shouldn't disincentive submitting the title metadata in the way we claim is best practice or incentivize submitting the title metadata in the not-best-practice way, which is the current status quo.
How urgent
Definition of ready
-
Product owner: -
Tech lead: -
Service:: label applied -
Definition of done updated -
Acceptance testing plan: -
Weight applied
Definition of done
-
Unit tests identified, implemented, and passing -
Code reviewed -
Available for acceptance testing via a staging URL, or otherwise -
Consider any impacts to current or future architecture/infrastructure, and update specifications and documentation as needed -
Knowledge base reviewed and updated -
Public documentation reviewed and updated -
Acceptance criteria met -
AC 1 -
AC 2
-
-
Acceptance testing passed -
Deployed to production