The problem with the current proposal is that it isn't amenable to Explain.
You are using out-of-band agreements for your extensibility.  You can't
Explain out-of-band.  If you want clients to know what kinds of information
you can return in a response, then you'd best publicize that in the list of
responseSchemas that you support.

(Plus, I just don't like the idea of sticking more information into a
catch-all string for later parsing.)

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 8:43 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Betr.: Re: issues list
>
>
> I don't see the difference between the SRU "Next Five
> Records" and the SRW "Next Five Records". I think we do not
> need the responseSchema and it can always be put in place
> again when we need it. For responses with extra data with
> respect to what is now in SRW, I like the suggestion of
> having a single root element defined in WSDL with child
> elements that have not to be defined in WSDL (see also Alans
> suggestion)
>
> Theo
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 06-02-02 12:55 >>>
> I don't see how you can kill responseSchema from SRU.  The
> whole point of
> SRU was the clients ability to specify a responseSchema whose
> contents were
> greater than an SRW response.  If I want a button on the
> screen that says
> "Next Five Records", then there better be the data in the
> response that I
> can put behind that button.  Remember, there is no processing of the
> response, simply reformatting from XML to HTML.
>
> Ralph
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Dovey [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 5:28 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: issues list
>
>
> I wondering if we can't kill two of these off.
>
> Firstly the time to live issue. The vote seems to be against
> me on this
> so shall we agree that the TTL is a hint (not guaranteed) and is a
> duration, which seems to be the consensus.
>
> Secondly responseSchema...
>
> As I see it we only need 2 schemas (given the assumption that
> explain is
> now a record syntax returned in a standard response) - one for SRU and
> one for SRW: The responseSchema idea came up when we were trying to
> combine the two and there were some additional elements needed by
> browsers which were not really relevant in the SOAP version. I'd like
> the SRW schema to be an extension of the SRW one rather than
> an entirely
> new schema. In this case we can drop responseSchema from both SRU and
> SRW.
>
> Matthew
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 05 February 2002 19:31
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: issues list
> >
> >
> > From the recent discussions I've added three new issues
> > (7-9) at: http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/zing/issues.html
> >
> > Please tell me if there are issues missing from the list.
> >
> > --Ray
> >
>