Rob Sanderson writes:
> > If (b):
> > - why does the RMS schema include the "record" element, that already
> > exists in the standard response format?
> > - what form would the response take with these specific extensions (e.g.
> > the sample I included in my previous post)?
> Yes. However if the extension said: Please give me any metadata you
> have, then you would want to have some structure to that response rather
> than including it directly in the extraRecordData. So:
> <rec:record xmlns:rec="http://srw.o-r-g.org/schemas/rec/1.0">
It seems clear that what the world needs right now is not guidelines
on how to make an extension that does this, but specifications for an
actual extension that does what's needed. Could you please rustle
something up? I'm sure it would only take you a few minutes, and it
would (A) make Martin's life much easier; and (B) ensure that his
implementation can interoperate with those that follow. (I can easily
imagine adding support for this to Zebra.)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Where's the foetus going to gestate, are you going to keep it
in a box?!" -- Monty Python's _Life of Brian_