It shouldn't really be necessary to have different flavors of MARC for
this. Unlikes other leader positions, Base address of data is NOT
defined to be implementation-specific or implementation-defined. Bytes
12/16 are supposed to contain base address of data, and in this case,
simply appear to be incorrect.
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)
>>> Ed Summers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 01/13/04 11:28AM >>>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:17:25PM +0100, Leif Andersson wrote:
> If it is in accordance with a special MARC flavour, then maybe
MARC::Record
> should do something to meet this need? But, we do not know that yet.
Yeah, we could have new_from_xxx() for a different MARC flavors I
suppose.
It might also be nice to be able to:
$MARC::RECORD::STRICT = undef;
$MARC::RECORD::WARNINGS = undef;
Which would have the same effects as:
$batch->strict_off();
$batch->warnings_off();
Which would allow for calls to new_from_usmarc() without bailing when
something
looks fishy...for advanced users only :)
But it would be even nicer to know exactly what's going on here first.
//Ed
--
Ed Summers
aim: inkdroid
web: http://www.inkdroid.org
The deeper I go the darker it gets. [Peter Gabriel]
