Print

Print


I don't think from an implementer's viewpoint that the age of the diagnostic
is of any importance.  Whilst we still have "room" for these diagnostics in
their correct place, why don't we put them there, burying our heads until
the time we need a new CQL diagnostic.  Perhaps then we could start a new
range with a heading group of "later defined CQL diagnostics" with a nice
fat number range.

I think that the diagnostics in Z39.50 are a mess.

Janifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 02 June 2004 20:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: diagnostic numbers


> Why not 47 and 48?

Well, for one, because we'll run out of that range real fast (after 49), so
the next diagnostic in that category will need a high number. Beginning now
with a new range is like what we did with Z39.50 diagnostics which worked
well, allowing us to easily associate a diagnostic with a particular era.

--Ray
________________________
The information in this electronic mail message is private and may be
confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the recipient. Should you
receive this message by mistake, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this message is prohibited.
Please delete this message and notify the sender immediately by return
email. OCLC PICA accepts no liability for the improper transmission of
information contained in this communication nor for any delay in its
receipt. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and
attachments are free from any virus, we do advise you to scan attachments
before opening them.