> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:09:52 -0400
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > What I don't understand is Ray's position that it's a _bad_ thing
> > for client software to be able to do anything with addInfo.
>
> Well I'm certainly sorry if that's what you inferred.

Oh, OK, seems like I misread you.  I think what you said was "We spent
years designing Z39.50 diagnostics so that clients would do something
intelligent with them, before completely repudiating the idea", which
seemed pretty strongly anti.

> My "position" would be that we shouldn't expect clients to do it,
> and shouldn't necessarily design diagnostics with that in mind.

If we do design diagnostics with that in mind, clients may or may not
use them; but if we don't design them with that in mind, then clients
don't even have the option.  So I think it's good to use solid,
well-defined addInfo where appropriate, so that we leave the door
open.

> What I don't want is for us to define alot of complex diagnostic
> structures that nobody ever implements.

Totally agreed!

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "... and a man they called Kierkegaard, who just sat there
         biting the heads off whippets"  -- Monty Python, "Ethel
         the Frog"

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/