Hi, Yaron,
I apologize for being so tardy in replying. I'll go through your suggestions one-by-one.
1. I'm indifferent to the ordering of the revision history, but since it has been done newest first, it would take some work to revise it. Do you want to volunteer to do it, if the group approves of of doing it that way?
2. a) I also like "enumerated" better than "specified"; although it might be possible for only one literal value to be specified for a particular record's field value(s), in which case "enumerated" would be inappropriate. "Specified" is the more general of the two terms. However, we're splitting hairs here. "Enumerated" would be OK with me. b) We have always tried to enforce a measure of "terseness" in various text features. Just because a particular requirement can be relaxed when necessary doesn't mean that it's "effectively" a nullity.
3. Limited is there for a reason (namely, to limit the lengths of certain elements). My preference is to allow the constraint to be relaxed on an exception basis - if that's actually necessary. I don't recall why we added the "unless otherwise noted in the record definition." However, as I wrote earlier, I don't think that allowing an "override" eliminates its utility when it's not explicitly relaxed.
4. I'll ask Paul to fix the reference errors (he's still on board for that).
5. Same as (4), Paul will fix the revision history.
6. It was not my intention (or anyone else's, as far as I know) that this revision would change the location of an engraving. I agree that that is unacceptable.