> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 2:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: xPath in searchRequest
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:18:16 +0100
> > From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
> > > I'm more likely to return the Mods record for the item with a link
> > > to the data, than the data intact (or at least support
> > Very 1990s, don't you think?
No - very web, where you'll find URL's pointer to stuff all over the
> > The world has moved on from this model, IMO, and not being able to
> > gracefully cope with large records is going to be an increasingly
> > significant failing. -Everything- is going XML, for better or
> > worse, and XML isn't a compact data format. Having to return only
> > short metadata records is, again IMO, an extremely short sighted
> > decision that will hinder take up worse than a single, optional,
> > parameter that references a well defined, well understood and
> > broadly implemented standard.
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
But I thought that Rob's raison d'etre for this xPath thing was that
your client couldn't cope with servers returning large XML
records(something about it blitzing mozilla off the map) ;-)
> Actually, I think that the set of "people apart from Mike" who've
> expressed that opinion currently consists only of Matthew. I'd like
> to hear some more opinions before we throw in this particular towel.
To come back to Mike's 'the half-dozen different user-communities Rob
in his last message (and no doubt others that we've not anticipated),
When they come to us and ask "Is SRW suitable for our large-record
I'd like to answer "yes" too - but I'd prefer to be able to do so, so
that they wo'n't then look at what we've done and say "very clever, but
that doesn't actually solve our requirements. Never mind, we'll do our