Please check the changes I made to
in particular I introduced the reserved schema name 'serverChoice'. Is it
reasonable to assume nobody will ever want to assign that as a short name
for a schema? If not, what's a good name?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: negotiation example
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
> > Can we add a flag where the client says either "must be one of these" or
> > you can't support any of these select another one".
> > "In the event where, if the server cannot support any schemas in the
> > then the client wishes the server to select an alternative schema, it is
> > recommended to omit the recordSchema parameter (thus if the server does
> > support the extension, non-support will be transparent). In the event
> > if the server cannot support any schemas in the list then the client
> > not want the server to select an alternative schema, it is recommended
> > include recordSchema parameter (similarly, if the server does not
> > the extension, non-support will be transparent)."
> Sounds good.
> ,'/:. 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