> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:18:36 +0100
> From: "Matthew J. Dovey" <[log in to unmask]>
>
> General consensus seems to be for Xpath so I'll withdraw my
> objections.
Cool.
> But...
>
> In general (and can we leave it mute whether Xpath is an example or
> not) I'd still like to follow the principle of adding stuff to SRW
> to solve existing requirements rather than following the Z39.05
> model of producing a highly versatile spec which can address new
> requirements before they are formed but which doesn't get used since
> it is too complex!
I am sure _everyone_ would agree that this is a good general
principle. I would, anyway.
BTW., as a point of historical interest, I don't think much, if any,
of Z39.50's perceived complexity went in speculatively. Most features
went in as a result of someone's real need; the problem is that there
was less take-up of the more esoteric features than anticipated. I'd
guess that _someone_ uses _every_ part of the spec ... but probably
no one implementation uses more than 50% of it.
_/|_ _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Leopards break into the temple and drink the sacrifical
chalices dry; this occurs repeatedly, again and again:
finally it can be reckoned upon beforehand and becomes a
part of the ceremony" -- Franz Kafka.
--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
|