W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Z39.50 character encoding

From: Ashley Sanders <zzaascs@irwell.mimas.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 09:12:11 +0000
To: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20020226091211.GA24046@irwell.mimas.ac.uk>
Ray Denenberg wrote:

> (a) Assign an option bit for utf-8 encoding.
> (b) Define an attribute for the encoding of a
> search term.
> (c) Do both.

I guess I prefer an option bit. Howevever...

> Option bit
> If this bit is negotiated it would pertain to
> retrieved data as well as the search term.

...if a utf-8 option is negotiated between origin
and target is it possible for me to subsequently
return a UKMARC (or other national format) record? 
MARC21 is not a problem as you can have unicode
MARC21 records, but UKMARC records "use an
extended ASCII (8 bit) character set". There
is no MARC leader byte in UKMARC to indicate
an alternative unicode/utf-8 encoding.

Would a request for a particular record syntax
override any utf-8 option bit set at Init time?


Ashley Sanders                                a.sanders@mcc.ac.uk
COPAC: A public bibliographic database from MIMAS, funded by JISC
             http://copac.ac.uk/ - copac@mimas.ac.uk
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 04:12:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:04 UTC