RE: native encoding

I agree with Henrik that we should look at the fields with International
String or similar.
We should *not* deal with external record syntaxes. We can not change the
way in which people retrieve MARC records.

The variant thing is not a good idea because it is not widely used. (In
other words, I don't know what it is.)

Pieter

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : LeVan,Ralph [mailto:levan@oclc.org]
> Envoyé : vendredi 1 mars 2002 16:25
> À : zig
> Objet : RE: native encoding
> 
> 
> No.  If I ask for a UKMARC record, I shouldn't have to 
> specify a variant as
> well.  The UKMARC specification defines its characterset.  
> Nothing we say in
> a Z39.50 request can change that.
> 
> We are going to have to profile (through an implementors 
> agreement) which
> record syntaxes the UTF-8 negotiation applies to.  
> Personally, I do not want
> the UTF-8 negotiation to apply to USMARC records, even if it is
> theoretically possible to get them UTF-8 encoded.  I expect 
> to get them
> encoded in USM-94 (ANSEL+EACC).
> 
> Record Syntaxes that should be effected by UTF-8 negotiation:
> SUTRS
> 
> GRS-1 could be on that list, but it is closely tied with the variant
> specification and I don't feel badly about using that to 
> control the GRS-1
> characterset.  (But, I have never supported GRS-1, so do 
> whatever you want
> with it.)
> 
> Ralph
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:rden@loc.gov]
> > Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 10:12 AM
> > To: zig
> > Subject: native encoding
> > 
> > 
> > The character encoding discussion seems now to
> > focus (and I use that term loosely) on native
> > encodings, that is, if we negotiate utf-8 for a
> > session and if a particular syntax has a
> > well-known, native encoding other than utf-8,
> > which applies?
> > 
> > Perhaps I missed something and if so please
> > refresh my memory:  What is the objection to using
> > variants?
> > 
> > Thus if utf-8 is negotiated it applies to
> > everything unless explicitly overiden. If you want
> > to request a record in an encoding other than
> > utf-8, you include a variant request; if a server
> > wants to supply a record in an encoding other than
> > utf-8, it includes a supplied variant.
> > 
> > Please, if anyone objects to this approach speak
> > up.
> > 
> > --Ray
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 10:36:31 UTC