LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ZNG Archives


ZNG Archives

ZNG Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ZNG Home

ZNG Home

ZNG  March 2008

ZNG March 2008

Subject:

Re: Price information in SRU responses

From:

Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors

Date:

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:52:58 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (44 lines)

I'm not talking about sending anything and wasting bandwidth. There are extensions that are useful to all users and extensions that are only useful for specific situations. The server knows that better than the client. I would consider a client that breaks down on unsollicited extra data not well implemented. As a user I would prefer a client that allows me to see the unsollicted extra data. But my client wouldn't say to the server that it accepts anything because the client can not judge the usefulness for the user. The server can.
 
Theo 

________________________________

From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors on behalf of Dr R. Sanderson
Sent: Sat 3/29/2008 12:23 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Price information in SRU responses



> 2) we may rely on system engineers to deal with unsollicited in a
>responsible way. Many servers have extensions that might be useful for
>others. Only extensions that are not useful for others should be on
>request only

This is my main problem with the proposal.

1.  Surely if an extension is not useful, it wouldn't exist?

2.  Assuming that there are non-useful extensions, how do you determine
if an extension is or is not useful to the current client?

3.  Assuming that you have a well implemented server, you could return
an AWFUL lot of extra data about a record, the search, the terms in
scan, etc.  You're just wasting everyone's bandwidth and processing time
by sending unwanted data that the client probably doesn't know what to
do with.  Yes you can safely ignore it, but that is not a zero cost
option.

4.  If, as a client, you want to get back anything, we have a way to do
it -- the accept extension.  I don't see why this should be forced on to
everyone when clients that want it can easily have it.  Just put it at
the beginning along with the static operation and version parameters and
forget about it. :)

5.  For some clients, getting back unknown elements could break them if
they use very strict XML processing rules.  Enforcing something that is
known to break otherwise well implemented clients is not good behaviour!

Rob

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2017
October 2016
July 2016
August 2014
February 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
February 2013
January 2013
October 2012
August 2012
April 2012
January 2012
October 2011
May 2011
April 2011
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager