I agree. It keeps the door open for servers with less sophisticated searching capabilities.
We need to find a way to express this in explain though.
On 23 Dec 2003 at 16:29, Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> I agree. Merry Christmas everyone,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 23 December 2003 16:20
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: requirements and expectations
> I want to know how people feel about how we should state what srw does and
> does not require. For example, in the result set section:
> "SRW does not require the support of persistent result sets that may be
> accessed by a client in subsequent requests. It does require the server to
> state whether or not it supports them, ....."
> I think the "does not require" part is fine. However I would prefer
> (second sentence) "It does require..." changed to "It does expect...".
> Because I'm not sure where this "requirement" would (or whether it should)
> be expressed.
> I would like srw to continue along the lines of publishing a "base profile"
> and avoiding a formal "conformance" section (the base profile will serve
> effectively as conformance in most cases, that's what customers will point
> vendors to, but for some who want to implement less than the base profile,
> we don't have to deal with the philosophical question of whether they're
> doing srw or not). And this is basically what we agreed to at the September
> Is everyone comfortable with this?