> 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. Actually, I was stating historical reality (not taking a position): the Z39.50 community pretty much repudiated the idea, between the 1995 and 200x version. As I saw it: client implementors were saying we're not going to develop clients smart enough to do anything useful with diagnostic information; server implementors were saying we're not going to send any of this diagnostic information anyway; so let's all stay with simple diagnostics. That's how I saw it. I wasn't happy about it then. (The "we" in my quote above didn't include me. Bad grammar.) If the SRW client and server implementors feel differently then I'm happy. > So I think it's good to use solid, > well-defined addInfo where appropriate, Who could argue with that? --Ray