- From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:38:15 -0400
Alan Kent wrote: > I would prefer different wording. ISO8777 is called Common Command Language. > That is, both Z39.58 and ISO8777 used the same name. I don't know all > the politics etc, but I think it would be confusing to list ISO8777 (type 2) > and "Common Command Language" (type 100) separately since if Z39.58 is > deemed not to exist, then ISO8777 is the only "Common Command Langauge" > that exists. Type 100 is different to ISO8777 (type 2) isn't it? > > I would rather keep it factual. For example say it was reserved for Z39.58, > but Z39.58 never reached formal approval. (Actually Z39.58 was formally approved. Then it was eventually withdrawn.) The point is to describe type-100 without reference to Z39.58, because if we refer to Z39.58 then it has to be listed in the reference section, and we can't do that because it's not a real standard anymore. > Deprication could be considered, ... No, not really, not at this stage. The ballotting is complete. There were no negative ballots, so there should not be any changes of this magnitude (such as depricating a feature) between ballot- and official-version. --Ray
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 09:36:44 UTC