> records/record/recordSchema isn't an optional field,
Oh. perhaps it should be.
> agreement not to provide null mandatory fields. So -something- has to be
> there, if only a pointer to the extraResponseData field with the real
> > for this purpose. I'd like us to avoid allowing normative semantics to
> > modifiable by extraDataRequest.
> I disagree on the grounds that it just doesn't concern us. ExtraData
> elements are the 5000+ private attributes which can mean anything in the
> privacy of your own profile. If someone wants to return their favourite
> chocolate cookie recipe in the recordSchema field when they recieve a
> <rcp:chocolateCookie/> extra data field, then that doesn't bother me in
> the slightest, as I will never see it happen.
Is there anyone here concerned that we're recreating Z39.50?