Yup, looks like it. This is a new one on me, who haven't really studied MARC since I escaped from MARBI in 1992. Maybe this is a USMARC->MARC 21 change, i.e. something that came in with MARC 21? Or was it a change in the ANSI or ISO standards? I don't think lowercase alphabetics were valid indicators in USMARC, which is why I'm positing a change somewhere, although my memory may be deficient. In any case, the LOC statement as to current standard seems quite clear.
Anne L. Highsmith Consortia Systems Coordinator 5000 TAMU Evans Library Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-5000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 979-862-4234 979-845-6238 (fax) >>> Morbus Iff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/19/03 08:43AM >>> Anne L. Highsmith says: >Quoting from "MARC 21 Specifications for Record Structure, >Character Sets, and Exchange Media RECORD STRUCTURE", >http://www.loc.gov/marc/specifications/specrecstruc.html#varifields >"Indicators may be any ASCII lowercase alphabetic, numeric, or blank" So, if that's the case, then MARC::Field is partially incorrect in its implementation of only digits and a blank, as per the following line ("if indicator is NOT a digit or a space..."): if ( $indicator !~ /^[0-9 ]$/ ) { Correct? -- Morbus Iff ( i put the demon back in codemonkey ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ Mac OS X Hacks: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596004605/disobeycom icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
