I'm happy with these.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: New Diagnostics proposal
>
>
> 6:  Unsupported parameter value
>
> Justification:  Rather than trying to enumerate all the
> possible things
> that could go wrong with all parameters in SRU (maximumRecords is
> negative, for example, which we deprecated as just stupid),
> we should have
> a single diagnostic meaning: "You sent the right parameter
> name, but the
> contents were garbage".  This doesn't apply for SRW as the schema
> constricts the types that can be sent/received.
>
> Details:  Name of parameter
>
>
> 7:  Mandatory parameter not supplied
>
> Justification: As per above, I can send a searchRetrieve
> operation via SRU
> with no query or version.
>
> Details: Name of missing parameter
>
>
>
> 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
>