Oddly enough, I agree with Ralph.
On 10 Aug 2005 at 9:28, LeVan,Ralph wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> > Mike Taylor
> > ... and it's insufficient because it doesn't allow a client to specify
> > more complex record structures such as schema A contained in schema B
> > contained in schema C.
> And there's where I think I'm ready to draw the line.
> The beauty of what we have now is that the server tells the client what
> it can do and the client picks from among the options. This arbitrary
> mix and match idea is just too much complexity.
> I'm happy with servers having their own identifiers for local record
> schemas that incorporate elements from other schemas. I'd be in favor
> of a proposal that allowed an Explain record to describe the contents of
> that local schema. But I think the current flock of proposals goes too
> Ralph (the curmudgeon)