Thin clients is the realm of SRU, not SRW.

I'm still interested in seeing Explain in SRW and don't see a conflict.
But, I haven't implemented any of it yet.  I didn't know that we'd even
started on a schema for our Explain records.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:26 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: SRW test server up for playing with
>
>
> Alan Kent wrote:
>
> >     Removed the responseSchema argument. I think we agreed to this.
>
> I'm not clear what we agreed to. In our discussion there was
> sentiment that
> there shouldn't be multiple response schemas, and even
> sentiment that there
> shouldn't be any response schema.  So yes, it follows (in
> either case) that
> there shouldn't be a response schema parameter in the request.
>
> But the question of response schema is orthogonal to the
> question of whether
> the response can take different forms at the request of the
> client (in other
> words, we can model that with zero, one, or several schemas).
>
> So aside from how we do it, my question is: are we still interested in
> supporting thin clients and Explain, or are these no longer
> requirements?
>
> --Ray
>