> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:14:43 -0400
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Why not 47 and 48?
> Well, for one, because we'll run out of that range real fast (after
> 49), so the next diagnostic in that category will need a high
Badger me backwards, it's true. We must all have been out of our tiny
minds when we decided to start the "diagnostics relating to records"
sequence at 50.
Oh well, the damage is done and with that in mind I suppose 200 is as
good a place to put the new diagnostics as any. But we dropped the
> Beginning now with a new range is like what we did with Z39.50
> diagnostics which worked well, allowing us to easily associate a
> diagnostic with a particular era.
What is the benefit to that?
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I'd have to agree with you ... If you were right" --
Robin Williams, "Awakenings"
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio