> > > > records/record/recordSchema isn't an optional field,
> > > Oh. perhaps it should be.
> > I would think it's quite likely that someone will define an SQL query
> > extension, where you pass a statement in, and it executes it (In
> > the same vein as ZSQL). So do we make the query field optional too?
> I don't buy the analogy. RecordSchema says what schema the client wants the
> records in. If it were optional, by omiting it you would be leaving it to
Ahh, wait :) I was talking about recordSchema in the response (eg, one
> the server to choose. That's straight out of Z39.50. You can omit it
Right, in the request the only mandatory fields are version and query.
Regardings SqlQuery vs QueryType -- This brings up a good point.
ExtraData can't modify the semantics of /request/ parameters. As a server
that doesn't know about the QueryType extension would barf trying to parse
SQL as CQL.
However the semantics of the /response/ can be changed as the client has
asked for the change by including the extraRequestData field.
Updating documentation now to make this more explicit.
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I