> > I don't understand why the "x-" is stripped.  I would prefer:
> > <x-foo>1</x-foo>
> > Then there is no necessity for extra stripping code when constructing the
> > XCQL for the response.

Hmmm. I'm somewhat convinced, but these are private extensions.  IMO it
should be defined how to return it in XML form when the extension is
defined, rather than requiring x-foo top level elements.

Secondly, such stripping code isn't even an extra line in any language I
know.

On the other hand, this is only in extraRequestData (both in the request
message, and the echoedRequest) and not in extraTerm/Record/ResponseData,
so I can live with it.

> I agree with Janifer. The x- is currently only used to prevent a
> diagnostic from the server. All parameters are echoed. Am I right?

The x- is to prevent future naming conflicts with private extensions.  For
example if we were to introduce a foo parameter in version 1.2 and someone
had been using 'foo' as their private extension, then there'd be a
conflict.

Note that echoedRequest is /optional/ even in SRU.  You can't trust
that every server will echo everything.  That said, I would expect that if
servers handle extraRequestData, then it's not hard to echo it back.  They
also may not echo requests that they don't understand.

I would be wary of doing something like putting application data into an
x-pleaseEchoMe field to maintain some sort of state.  For example, you
want to redisplay the database name, so you send a request like:

   http://...?query=fish&x-databaseName=Test%20Database

just to have the name in the response.

(As a server admin, I'd be less than pleased with such client behaviour)


> There was an argument in version 1.0 that the parameter name could be an
> invalid XML tag name and for that reason the parameter name was put in
> <ParameterName>. I guess this argument has lost importance?

Anyone who creates an extension that uses invalid xml element
name characters as part of the name of the extension deserves to receive
broken xml or a diagnostic for their foolishness :)

It is a trap for unwary server writers though. (Rob goes off to fix that
bug in his code now, where one badly named extension would trash the rest
of them as well)

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