LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


MODS@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


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

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  October 2006

MODS October 2006

Subject:

Re: MODS to MARC21slim

From:

Jackie Shieh <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:43:23 -0400

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (57 lines)


Yes, I am aware of unicode has various UTF encoding.
I had to deal with converting UTF-16 to UTF-8 in order
to use MARC::Record module.

What I was puzzled was that how OAI harvested data
can have this problem when it was declared already
as utf-8... then caused my MARC::Record to have diacritics
problem.  I suspect this is more complicated where I
must trace back to the original supplier of the data.
Then go from there.

Thank very much for all your patience in this mystery!

Regards,

--Jackie

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Erik Hetzner wrote:

> At Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:55:18 -0400,
> Jackie Shieh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I am fairly new on MODS and MARC21 conversion,
>> so my question perhaps too elementary...
>>
>> If declaring output to ascii, don't I then miss
>> the proper diacritics encoding?!  The records
>> I have are primary non-English.
>
> Character encoding is simple in concept but complex in execution. I am
> not an expert but I will do my best.
>
> The UTF codepoint for LATIN SMALL E WITH ACUTE (é; if you do not see
> an e with an acute accent your (or possibly my) mail reader is not
> working propertly) is U+00E9 (see
> <http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/00e9/). As UTF-8 this is
> expressed by the two bytes 0xC3 0xA9 (see above message). If your
> document is encoded as UTF-8 then those two bytes will make the
> character above. If you are looking at the file as latin-1 encoding
> these bytes will not look like this é but instead like é. If you set
> the encoding of your output file to ascii it will “entity encode” your
> character as &#233; (decimal) or &#xe9; (hex). If you are processing
> this xml with a useful parser it does not care if you have: (a) é in
> utf-8; or (b) &#233; or &#x39; as entity encoded characters. But it
> you wish to force your XSL transform to output entity encoded ascii
> rather than UTF-8 you must set you encoding to “ascii” in your
> <xsl:output> element. This means that the file itself is 7-bit ascii
> but all the characters outside of those 7-bits will be encoded as pure
> ascii which is equivalent as far as XML parsers are concerned.
>
> best,
> --
> Erik Hetzner
> California Digital Library
> 510-987-0884
>

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

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 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
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager