LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  December 2003

ZNG December 2003

Subject:

Re: Betr.: recordSchema

From:

Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative

Date:

Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:46:24 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (54 lines)

> > Yes, but the client must be prepared to receive more than one schema.
> > 'Must' because the server can return a diagnostic rather than the
> > record.
> I was not aware of the fact that unrequested schemas could be returned.

Only the diagnostic schema can be returned if unrequested. (Obviously you
wouldn't /request/ a surrogate diagnostic! :))

> > Short names can be anything.  You'd need to know the explain to know which
> > XSL to use.

> You know which XSL to use because you have somewhere a table saying
> which schema uses which XSL. The server and the schema both do not know
> which XSL you have available.

Right. So by using the URI, there's -one- string to look for, and we don't
need the explain map.

> I agree that using URIs give more "precision" but at the same time more
> divergence. I belief that different schema's can sometimes be handled
> the same stylesheet, but by the increased "precision" the chance of
> matching becomes smaller. That is the reason that we will start using
> DCX at the KB. The overlap in different record types is in case of

Uhhh, how does this have any bearing on the URI vs URI or short name
discussion?  If you don't recognise the URI, then you certainly won't
recognise the short name either... even worse, you have a chance of
recognising the short name as the /wrong/ schema.

Even so, the default XSLT template to apply further templates will filter
them through regardless. So just import all your stylesheets and ignore
the URI in the recordSchema.  If it was a short name, you don't gain
anything either.

> > If so, then they can also have access to the parameters of the request
> > they just sent, and we can ditch echoedRequest.  But I can't see how to do
> > either without significant Javascript hackery.
> The echoedRequest is needed to make the response self containing, which
> allows easy navigation without much Javascript. Clients can do a lot

Right. Ditto for the full URI in the response, not short names.
Allowing one and not the other is not something that I could explain the
reasoning behind.

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager