Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> writes:
>> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
>> move on. �I agree with your concerns that this whole module is badly
>> designed and that the approach of hard-coding the list of ISBN ranges
>> is fundamentally unscalable, but unless we're going to rip it out or
>> rearchitect it, we don't really get any benefit out of digging in our
>> heels and refusing to apply occasional band-aids.
> I don't think you'll be in the minority. I suspect that we'll end up
> applying this patch, because your reasoning is sound.
Personally I was hoping for some independent validation that the
proposed changes match current reality in ISN-land. But apparently
no one actually wants to repeat the research, so we might as well just
take the changes on faith.
>> 2. Don't try to validate the list of ISBN ranges at all.
> Actually, we just use the range information to hyphenate ISBNs...they
> won't actually be rejected unless they have an invalid check digit,
> or, in the case of ISBN-13s, if their country codes (first 3 digits)
> aren't "bookland", either 978 or 979. Perhaps the problem of new
> ranges being introduced over time isn't all that much of a problem.
Yeah, in the real world this is not all that important.
> Could this patch be backported as a bug fix?
This isn't a bug fix in my opinion. It's a behavioral change, and one
with nonzero risk of breaking apps that might not expect the new
hyphenation.
> It adds the new bookland
> country code of 979. Prior versions of the patch will outright reject
> these correct ISBN-13s, so I think that is a good idea.
Hm, maybe just the addition of 979 is ok to back-port. Comments?
regards, tom lane