I'm okay with bath. Let's not do the X- business. How about zxd for Z39.50
Cross Domain instead of dc?
Ralph
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: moving along on prefixes
>
>
> Assuming people like the idea of a bath prefix for
> cql, let's move forward. I have a few questions:
>
> 1. Should well-known srw prefixes themselves be
> prefixed with "X-" as Mike suggests? Please
> comment. I don't really think that rfc 822 sets
> this precedent as it has alot of well-known fields
> without "x-", and it seems that the "x-" is for
> extensions. Could we initially assume that there
> will be a manageable set of these, and if we're
> wrong then we can adopt the "x-" pre-prefix in the
> future?
>
> 2. Do the set of Bath searches that I listed look
> right? Should we run this by the Bath group?
>
> 3. What other well-known prefixes do we want? One
> for Dublin Core? If so, what should that prefix
> be? If we adopt the X- convention then there
> isn't a problem, it can be X-dc, and Ralph can use
> dc for his Dark Custard set. Still, I'd be
> happier to just use dc as the prefix for dublin
> core.
>
> --Ray
>
|