> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:16:16 -0400
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > I do think it is intended to be machine readable.
> I can't seem to recall that discussion. Can someone summarize it?
> We spent years designing Z39.50 diagnostics so that clients would do
> something intelligent with them, before completely repudiating the
> idea. What's changed?
I have no memory of the repudiation. Was it before my time? Can you
summarise why machine-readable diagnostics were repudiated? They seem
like a fine idea to me.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be
terribly misleading. Debug only code" -- Dave Storer.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio