- From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:31:43 +1000
- To: www-zig@w3.org
On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 11:20:14AM +0100, Mike Taylor wrote: > > 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? I don't remember exactly, I almost certainly voted in favor of it. Z39.50 has a slot for CCL (ISO8777) queries. So I vaguely remember arguing that it would be useful to have a CCL pattern match operator so clients can easily turn CCL queries into RPN to be sent over the wire. I don't recall why it got called Z39.58 - probably because it was the "Z" version of the ISO standard. It was identical to the ISO8777 pattern match operator so I probably did not care. > 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". I would personally like this - or rename it to be ISO8777 (identical pattern syntax to Z39.58) in line with type-2 queries. As I have written before on, I would like to put double-quotes in for completeness. (The fact that we have already written the code here is completely unrelated! :-) Alan
Received on Sunday, 12 May 2002 22:32:18 UTC