RE: Subfield mark in MARC records

From: Kolbjørn Aambø (
Date: Thu Mar 26 1998 - 03:51:44 EST

All this can be inferred from earlier standards without deciding anything
in addition.....but there is a catch, Endianness.

Some relevant control codes:

Name decimal hex bigendian hex
                                        (Status FEFF) (Status FFEF)
Field Separator : dec 28 hex 001C hex C100
Group Separator : dec 29 hex 001D hex D100
Record Separator: dec 30 hex 001E hex E100
Unit Separator : dec 31 hex 001F hex F100

Intel x86 is littleendian
PowerPC is mostly bigendian but have a littleendian mode.
The rest of the prosessors sold today are bigendian.

I assume, but are not sure, that UTF-8 represent ISO/IEC 6429 using one
octet that will be regarded without any endian problem.

Can anyone say something about this?

Sorry I was misprinting ISO/IEC 6429 as 6420 in my previous post.

>Chris White wrote:
>> Those of you who work with bibliographic records, especially MARC
>> records, will know that in the good old ASCII days the code point used
>> for subfield mark was Hex 1F, and when a visual representation was
>> needed, the dollar character, $, was used, (at least in the UK).
>> I am now endeavouring to ascertain if there is an emerging de facto
>> standard among UNICODE users on what code point and glyph to use for
>> the subfield mark.
>> Any news of such a developing standard would be most welcome.
>Subcommittees of the American Library Association's MARBI Committee are
>working on such a standard. The mappings established to date can be
>viewed at Work is currently
>underway on the mapping of CJK characters.
>In particular, the subfield delimiter has been assigned to U+001F, the
>field terminator to U+001E, and the record terminator to U+001D. So far
>as I know, no standard for visual representation has been proposed.
>Gary L. Smith
>Senior Consulting Analyst
>Database & Offline Products Development

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:39 EDT