> > 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 number. 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.
Alrighty. That's good enough for me.
Rob
--
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::.
I L L U M I N A T I L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
|