LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for UNICODE-MARC Archives


UNICODE-MARC Archives

UNICODE-MARC Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UNICODE-MARC Home

UNICODE-MARC Home

UNICODE-MARC  June 2006

UNICODE-MARC June 2006

Subject:

Re: MARC Proposal 2006-09 on lossless conversion of Unicode to MARC-8

From:

"Houghton,Andrew" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

UNICODE-MARC Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:11:28 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (41 lines)

> From: UNICODE-MARC Discussion List 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Smith,Gary
> Sent: 09 June, 2006 12:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [UNICODE-M] MARC Proposal 2006-09 on lossless 
> conversion of Unicode to MARC-8
> 
> Stephen Toney wrote:
> 
> > Gary Smith wrote,
> >> It's easier for the producing program to output 
> fixed-length strings 
> >> for the common cases,
> 
> > ST: As the developer of MARCView(tm) and MARConvert(tm) I beg to
> differ.
> > What you say depends on the code. In our code, adding leading zeros 
> > would require an extra step. I don't see how you can speak so
> generally
> > about ALL software.
> 
> You're right -- I over-generalized.  I don't know of a 
> situation where it's significantly more difficult to produce 
> the leading zeros, but I grant that they may exist.

Regardless of how easy, or not, it is to produce leading zeros,
I thought I read at one point, a W3C standard or other standard,
that it was either recommended or required that leading zeros be
eliminated for numeric or hexadecimal entities.  Can anyone 
produce a reference.

It would seem that
1) one should try to follow other recommendations and 
2) this issue is a non-issue since it quite easy one the
   receiving side to process either form; I know Gary
   has an adversion to allow more than one way to do the
   same thing in a standard, but...


Andy.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2018
February 2016
September 2013
March 2013
September 2008
December 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager