https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=27365
--- Comment #33 from David Cook <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Thomas Klausner from comment #31) > But as I stated in my original comment, MARC::Record should handle invalid > data (i.e. field > 9999 bytes). Either by rejecting the data (i.e. throwing > an exception) or truncating the data. Or let the user decide which of the > two via a flag. That's an interesting idea. > But generating an invalid record that cannot be parsed back is definitely a > bug. That's a very good point. > > That said... in theory the MARC standard could be changed/hacked, so that > > the "20 - Length of the length-of-field portion" could be longer, and then > > the MARC processing library could interpret a directory as having longer > > field lengths... > > I guess you're joking. I cannot imagine that this 24 year old standard can > be changed, esp. as we have things like MARCXML :-) I probably didn't articulate myself well enough. I mean the standard contradicts itself a bit. In theory, it lets you define the length of the field according to one part. But another part says only to a maximum of 4 characters. And another part mandates only 4 is allowed. But in theory if you had a cooperative software library, you could stretch the truth a bit... so yeah maybe I was joking around a bit haha. (Also, the standard is much older than 24 years!) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
