> > > > records/record/recordSchema isn't an optional field,
> > > Oh. perhaps it should be.

> > I would think it's quite likely that someone will define an SQL query
> > extension, where you pass a statement in, and it executes it (In
> > the same vein as ZSQL).  So do we make the query field optional too?

> I don't buy the analogy.  RecordSchema says what schema the client wants the
> records in.  If it were optional, by omiting it you would be leaving it to

Ahh, wait :)  I was talking about recordSchema in the response (eg, one
per record)

> the server to choose. That's straight out of Z39.50.  You can omit it

Right, in the request the only mandatory fields are version and query.

Regardings SqlQuery vs QueryType -- This brings up a good point.
ExtraData can't modify the semantics of /request/ parameters. As a server
that doesn't know about the QueryType extension would barf trying to parse
SQL as CQL.

However the semantics of the /response/ can be changed as the client has
asked for the change by including the extraRequestData field.

Updating documentation now to make this more explicit.

Rob

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