On Fri, July 14, 2006 2:17 pm, Edward Summers wrote:
> This is all fine, but lets talk in unit tests for MARC::Record if we
> can. They will make plain what the actual behavior is ...
I was commenting here about my concern raised by the findings of Paul
Poulain. I had no test of my own showing an
This is all fine, but lets talk in unit tests for MARC::Record if we
can. They will make plain what the actual behavior is, and will let
us talk about what the preferred behavior could be. Sorry to be so
short, but there's only so much time in the day.
//Ed
On Jul 13, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Tho
The MARC record management libraries need to allow management of the
legacy records we actually have and the records that existing systems
currently use.
Some problems that MARC record management libraries need to manage:
1. CHARACTER VARIANCE FOR FIELD CODES.
Large union catalogue systems such
On Jul 13, 2006, at 12:41 PM, Paul POULAIN wrote:
sometimes, I parse XML that contains invalid subfieldcode (like a
capital letter)
M::F::X definetly dies in this case.
MARC::Field seems to allow a subfield with a capital letter--as it
should since there really is no requirement that subfie
Hello all,
sometimes, I parse XML that contains invalid subfieldcode (like a
capital letter)
M::F::X definetly dies in this case.
Could it be possible to have an option that deals with invalid
subfieldcodes :
* die (actual behaviour)
* drop (drop the subfield)
* ignore (integrate the subfiel
