> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:48:33 -0500
> From: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <[log in to unmask]>
> > 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?
I agree that we're going down that road, yes; but I can't say I'm
_concerned_ about it, mostly because it was always inevitable. 90% of
the perceived complexity of Z39.50 is irreducible, "real" rather than
merely apparent complexity if you like; and in making SRW a protocol
fit for more than demos, we're necessarily reproducing that 90% in
different forms. We've been able to dispose of the 10% of Z39.50's
complexity that was concerned with ASN.1, though ... but it's far from
clear that the mish-mash of XML, Schemas, SOAP, WSDL and various
toolkits is less complex. Oh well, that's progress :-|
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "It was just those nasty Nazies who persuaded them to fight /
Their Beethoven and Bach is really far worse than their bite"
-- Noel Coward, _Don't Let's Be Beastly to the Germans_
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at