>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.
As Ed said, and I'm slowly starting to agree with for different reasons, does anyone absolutely need the alphabetics as an indicator? More importantly:
* what should MARC::Record read and write as a baseline? MARC? USMARC/MARC21? UniMARC? I don't even know the differences between them, but is MARC21 backwards compatible with MARC? Is anyone who's anyone ALWAYS using the latest LC MARC standard? Is that the same assumption that should be placed on MARC::Record?
* If someone is ONLY using MARC, and they MARC::Lint,
will they expect MARC-rules ("no alpha indicators") or
MARC21 rules ("alpha indicators"). How badly will this
break Lint scripts? A MARC record shouldn't be validated
against MARC21 rules (especially if another program
expects non-alpha's under MARCs, but gets a linted and
"correct" MARC21 with alphas).Note to readers: When I say "MARC", I mean "the one that no one remembers allowing alphabetic indicators". When I say "MARC21", I collectively mean "USMARC/MARC21" or "the one Anne quoted that says alphas are dandy". I suspect I'm using one of those terms incorrectly - cluestick happily.
-- Morbus Iff ( i put the demon back in codemonkey ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ My book, Spidering Hacks: http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005776/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
