On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Mike Taylor wrote:
> > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

> > > The problem with doing this is if a 1.1. client send such a
> > > request to a current 1.0 server, the server will return an

> > Why can't we have version 1.0 servers and version 1.1 servers? If a
> > version 1.0 server gets a 1.1 request it's going to fail it at the
> > toolkit level because it doesn't conform to the spec. 1.0 talking
> > to 1.0 will still work, as will 1.1 to 1.1

> That's pretty poor. In Z39.50, version 2 and version 3 clients can
> interoperate just fine -- they negotiate the best shared level of
> protocol support. If this stuff is meant to be The Next Generation,
> it ought to do at least as well.

Which would be great if we had sessions and a base level initRequest over
which to negotiate ;) But I take it that you'd thus rather have 1.0
clients talking successfully to 1.1 servers.

Just so I'm clear about what our XML would look like:

<srw10:searchRetrieveRequest
    xmlns:srw10="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/v1.0/"
    xmlns:srw11="http://www.loc.gov/zing/srw/v1.1/">
  <srw10:query>ccg.title = sword</srw10:query>
  <srw11:resultSetTTL>600</srw11:resultSetTTL>
  <srw10:startRecord>1</srw10:startRecord>
  <srw10:maximumRecords>5</srw10:maximumRecords>
  <srw11:recordPacking>xml</srw11:recordPacking>
  <srw10:recordSchema>http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/ccg/1.0</srw10:recordSchema>
  <srw11:recordXPath>/card/name | /card/type | /card/artist</srw:recordXPath>
</srw10:searchRetrieveRequest>

Yes?

What about SRU, which doesn't have any convenient place to put this
information? It's just out of luck? Or we're going to put in a new
'&version=1.1' parameter?

Rob

--
      ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I