Re: Z38.58 reference in Z39.50

> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:42:19 PDT
> From: "Madeleine Stovel"  <BL.MDS@RLG.ORG>
> 
> I agree with Alan Kent that using Common Command Language is
> confusing since there is an extant standard with that name.
> 
> I see two alternatives:  explain that Type 100 refers to a search
> type whose definition is no longer available, or just say that Type
> 100 is undefined.

Neither of these approaches will yield a document that's much help to
the poor server implementor whose software one day receives a search
with truncation=104 and doesn't know what do with it.

Maybe I'm being very dense here, but I honestly can't see what's wrong
with Saying What We Mean Simply And Directly(*).  Why can the prose
for truncation=104 not simply say "This used to be truncation as
defined in Z39.59, but thay standard has now been withdrawn, so this
attribute is deprecated in favour of [whichever one we finally
introduce instead]."?

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I've got an allergy to Perrier, daylight and responsibility"
	 -- Marillion, "Incommunicado"


(*) SWYMSAD is rule #1 in Kernighan & Pike's _The Elements of
Programming Style_.

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 05:53:53 UTC