> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:18:16 +0100
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > I'm more likely to return the Mods record for the item with a link
> > to the data, than the data intact (or at least support
> Very 1990s, don't you think? Can't handle the data properly so
> ... I'll just give you a link to it and hope that the client can
> somehow deal with it. Why don't we do this for all of our records?
> That would make life much easier if the only contents of recordData
> was a URL to the record.
> The world has moved on from this model, IMO, and not being able to
> gracefully cope with large records is going to be an increasingly
> significant failing. -Everything- is going XML, for better or
> worse, and XML isn't a compact data format. Having to return only
> short metadata records is, again IMO, an extremely short sighted
> decision that will hinder take up worse than a single, optional,
> parameter that references a well defined, well understood and
> broadly implemented standard.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
> But, I've registered my proposal, people apart from Mike think it's
> somehow too complex even though it's expainable in a single
> sentence, so I'll just have to assign namespaces for all the
> different schemas I need.
Actually, I think that the set of "people apart from Mike" who've
expressed that opinion currently consists only of Matthew. I'd like
to hear some more opinions before we throw in this particular towel.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "I wish you all happiness and harmony, and that you will
all find something you can agree on, however small" --
Robin Reed's farewell message to the Dinosaur Mailing List.
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at