Fine by me.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 10:20 AM
> 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?