> 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
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/