Date:         Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:52:32 +0200
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Betr.: Re: sort parameter
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

>>>> [log in to unmask] 10-07-02 17:56 >>>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:53:07 +0200
>> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> My approach would be: take the time to see how different
>> implementors handle sort [...]
>
>Badgers to that!  Let's TELL 'em what to do!
>
>That's what we're here for, after all.
>
>Otherwise, where's the interoperability?  It's a hard quality to
>retrofit!  :-)

A very common procedure in a standardisation pocess is trying to do things, that everyone does, as much as possible in the same way. Therefore first analyse how things are done, what is common and what is different, then we know how to do it in the most interoperable way and only then we TELL 'em what to do.
So we agree: I described the first stage of the process and Mike the last stage.

My objective is not just TELL 'em what to do and return a diagnostic when they didn't. In my view interoperability also means allowing for differences. 

Theo