> 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
> What I don't want is for us to define alot of complex diagnostic
> structures that nobody ever implements.
/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
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio