I do not understand the argument. A client receives the record schema
that he asked for.
I would propose to allow short names when the relation between short
name and URI is specified in explain. In addition to that I also prefer
a short list of short names that is maintained by ZiNG (DC, MARCXML,
EAD, ONIX, MODS, DCX).
Question: how are intelligent clients supposed to use that URI? I
would expect only "known" schemas will be asked for and in case of XML
you would rather use a known XSL URI to display a record than a
(unknown?) schema URI to validate the record.
I assume the terminally braindead clients are web browsers. There is no
reason that they cannot have access to explain, and when they have no
access to explain at the same time I do not see how they can have access
to the schema at the same time.
When you say "are encouraged to use URI's" rather than "should" and
users are not punished with an error message in case the server uses a
short name, then I don't disagree.
>>> [log in to unmask] 12/11 12:53 >>>
Servers should return the URI of a recordSchema in the
records/record/recordSchema field rather than the short name.
terminally braindead clients won't be able to figure out what the data
(as they don't have access to the explain information at the same time
Disagreements before I write this in?
,'/:. 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