RE: character sets: Term as OCTET STRING

As Pieter pointed out, just because a server says it is version 3 does not
mean that all the Term choices work.  I can be reasonably sure that general
works and need to be able to use it.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Dahl [mailto:hdahl@inet.uni2.dk]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 12:43 AM
> To: 'LeVan,Ralph'; 'Mike Taylor'
> Cc: Pieter.VanLierop@geac.com; www-zig@w3.org
> Subject: SV: character sets: Term as OCTET STRING
> 
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> Term is defined like this:
> 
> Term ::= CHOICE{
> general [45] IMPLICIT OCTET STRING,
> -- values below may be used only if version 3 is in force
> numeric [215] IMPLICIT INTEGER,
> characterString [216] IMPLICIT InternationalString,
> oid [217] IMPLICIT OBJECT IDENTIFIER,
> dateTime [218] IMPLICIT GeneralizedTime,
> external [219] IMPLICIT EXTERNAL,
> integerAndUnit [220] IMPLICIT IntUnit,
> null [221] IMPLICIT NULL}
> 
> I understand your point is considering the "general" choice. 
> Why don't you
> just use characterString instead unless of course it's not really
> Z39.50-1995 but only Z39.50-1992 you're dealing with?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Henrik Dahl
> 
> 
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]På vegne af
> LeVan,Ralph
> Sendt: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 4:44 PM
> Til: 'Mike Taylor'; LeVan,Ralph
> Cc: Pieter.VanLierop@geac.com; www-zig@w3.org
> Emne: RE: character sets: Term as OCTET STRING
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, let me be clearer.  My proposal was for the general 
> form of a Term
> (which is an IMPLICIT OCTET STRING) to be included in the 
> negotiation.  Not
> all OCTET STRINGs.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Taylor [mailto:mike@tecc.co.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:17 AM
> > To: levan@oclc.org
> > Cc: Pieter.VanLierop@geac.com; www-zig@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: character sets: Term as OCTET STRING
> >
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 09:33:54 -0400
> > > From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
> > >
> > > I believe that the negotiation does not apply to OCTET STRING.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > I also believe that this is a mistake and have proposed that OCTET
> > > STRING be included in the negotiation.
> >
> > I would be very uncomfortable about changing this.  OCTET 
> STRINGs are
> > not strings in this sence.  (They ought perhaps to be 
> called something
> > like OCTET SEQUENCES).  What if you include in your GRS-1 record a
> > JPEG image as an OCTET STRING?  What would it mean for that to be
> > subject to negotation?
> >
> > Surely InternationalString should be used everywhere that 
> the idea of
> > character-set negotation makes any sense.
> >
> >  _/|_	 
> _______________________________________________________________
> > /o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>
> > www.miketaylor.org.uk
> > )_v__/\  "Sharing of software is as old as computers, just 
> as sharing
> > 	 of recipes is as old as cooking" - Richard Stallman.
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2002 09:37:25 UTC