Is it really true that newline characters are not allowed in a marc 
value?  I thought they were, not with any special meaning, just as 
ordinary data.  If they're not, that's useful to know, so I don't put 
any there!

I'd ask for a reference to the standard that says this, but I suspect 
it's going to be some impenetrable implication of a side effect of an 
subtle adjective either way.

On 5/19/2011 2:19 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>>
>> Anyway, I think having these two parts of the same URL data on 
>> separate lines is definitely Not Right, but I am not sure if it adds 
>> up to invalid MARC.
>
> Exactly. The CR and LF characters are NOT defined as valid in the MARC 
> character set and should not be used. In fact, in MARC there is no 
> concept of "lines", only variable length strings (usually up to 9999 
> char).
>
> kc
>
>>
>> -dre.
>>
>> [1] http://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd856.html
>> [2] I am not a cataloger. Don't hurt me.
>> [3] I am not an expert on MARC ingest or on ruby-marc. I could be wrong.
>>
>> On 5/19/2011 12:37 PM, James Lecard wrote:
>>> I'm using ruby-marc ruby parser (v.0.4.2) to parse some marc files I 
>>> get
>>> from a partner.
>>>
>>> The 856 field is splitted over 2 lines, causing the ruby library to 
>>> ignore
>>> it (I've patched it to overcome this issue) but I want to know if 
>>> this kind
>>> of marc is valid ?
>>>
>>> =LDR  00638nam  2200181uu 4500
>>> =001  cla-MldNA01
>>> =008  080101s2008\\\\\\\|||||||||||||||||fre||
>>> =040  \\$aMy Provider
>>> =041  0\$afre
>>> =245  10$aThis Subject
>>> =260  \\$aParis$bJ. Doe$c2008
>>> =490  \\$aSome topic
>>> =650  1\$aNarratif, Autre forme
>>> =655  \7$abook$2lcsh
>>> =752  \\$aA Place on earth
>>> =776  \\$dParis: John Doe and Cie, 1973
>>> =856  \2$qtext/html
>>> =856  
>>> \\$uhttp://www.this-link-will-not-be-retrieved-by-ruby-marc-library
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> James L.
>>
>
>
>