 |
 |
Thin clients is the realm of SRU, not SRW. I'm still interested in seeing Explain in SRW and don't see a conflict. But, I haven't implemented any of it yet. I didn't know that we'd even started on a schema for our Explain records. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:26 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: SRW test server up for playing with > > > Alan Kent wrote: > > > Removed the responseSchema argument. I think we agreed to this. > > I'm not clear what we agreed to. In our discussion there was > sentiment that > there shouldn't be multiple response schemas, and even > sentiment that there > shouldn't be any response schema. So yes, it follows (in > either case) that > there shouldn't be a response schema parameter in the request. > > But the question of response schema is orthogonal to the > question of whether > the response can take different forms at the request of the > client (in other > words, we can model that with zero, one, or several schemas). > > So aside from how we do it, my question is: are we still interested in > supporting thin clients and Explain, or are these no longer > requirements? > > --Ray >