> We have specified that the Truncation attribute always has a value of 104
> (z39.58 truncation).
Well, I missed that! Does everyone go along with this? (Or did others miss it
too?) How does that square with the current debate over the Z39.58 truncation
attribute? I suppose we better solve it.
Please note (and I posted a message yesterday), I've updated the cql document
and the mapping section (that mentions truncation) is currently empty. I didn't
know how valid it was so I thought it better to leave it out until we review
The previous version is at
Please all review this mapping section so we can bring it up to date.