- From: Mike Taylor <mike@tecc.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:20:14 +0100 (BST)
- To: levan@oclc.org
- CC: www-zig@w3.org, www-zig@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:30:07 -0400 > From: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org> > > So, we have a flawed, unimplemented standard that was allowed to > slip gracefully into its grave at review time. :-) Sounds pretty dam' conclusive, then. Which raises the question: how did a Z39.59 truncation attribute ever get into BIB-1 in the first place? It now seems to me that the best approach is: we write a brief but watertight spec. for how we want 104 trunction to work, an change the prose so it says something non-commital like "This is similar to what was specified by the defunct Z39.58 standard". _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike@miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "He was a quintessentially Anglican archbishop - quite worldly, quite gossipy, extremely decent, undogmatic, kind, conscientious, unvisionary, patriotic" -- Telegraph's obituary for Archbishop Runcie.
Received on Friday, 10 May 2002 06:20:15 UTC