Re: Z39.50 Character Set Requirements

> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:14:08 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
> 
> Assuming this premise to be true,  we need a way to
> explicitly indicate the character set/encoding of a search
> term.  Clearly the most obvious and natural way is via an
> attribute.  But what's the best way to do this? I'm sure
> there will be differing views.  Do we want a sound technical
> solution via the attribute architecture or a more immediate
> approach via a cludge to bib-1? Or a phased approach,
> involving both?

I very much like your approach of figuring out what The Right Solution
is in the context of the attribute architecture, then squeezing that
solution into the BIB-1 mould for those wacky v2 people. 

> The problem with the architecture is that there is no room
> for a character set attribute. We would have to issue a new
> version of the architecture. (I believe we made a
> shortsighted decision when we left this out; I recall we
> rationalized that it wasn't needed because we had character
> set negotiation.) Perhaps this problem is serious enough to
> warrant a new version of the architecture.

Well yeah, but that's not such a big deal, is it?  We just go to v1.2
and add a note near the top saying "changes for 1.2: added
character-set attribute".  That's legitimate evolution of the
document.  It doesn't overthrow on invalidate any of the earlier
work.

(4WIW, I did argue for the inclusion of a character-set attribute at
the time, but I'm not the gloating kind so I'll stay quiet on that
subject :-)

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "If only there were some EASY, COWARDLY way out of this" --
	 Bob the Angry Flower, www.angryflower.com

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2001 08:45:16 UTC