On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 17:24 +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:

>  > (2) The ability to retrieve a record's metadata according to a
>  > specific metadata schema already exists.  You just retrieve that
>  > record and name that schema in the record schema parameter
>  > (granted, that doesn't allow you to get both the record data and
>  > its metadata at the same time, you need two requests - not a big
>  > hardship).
> 
> Ha!  I hadn't spotted that.  Nice observation.

True, but doesn't that argue against the need for the extension at all?


>  > So I agree with you that in this extension we are developing, the
>  > ability to name a schema is overkill.
> Good.

Then we need to define a very thorough schema, or we'll constantly be
fielding requests:  Can you just add <insert favourite metadata field>
please?


>  > (3)
>  > > I would also prefer that the metadata extension be self-contained,
>  > > which means defining something like:
>  > > &x-info-99-metadata=1
>  > What does "1" signify here?
> 
> It just means "yes" or "true".  Maybe it would be more explicit to say:
>      &x-info-99-metadata=true
> ?  Do we have any precedent for true/false values in SRU extension
> parameters?

Do we need a value at all?  Why not just ...&x-info-99-metadata&... ?


>  > (4) I agree with Rob (actually with all three of you perhaps) that
>  > this should not be overloaded onto the accept extension, which has
>  > "accept" semantics, when what we are talking about is "request"
>  > semantics.
>  > 
>  > So I think we're nearly in synch.
> 
> Looks that way!

Yup.

Rob