 |
 |
I support the idea of having only one response schema. The danger of introducing additonal response schemas is the possible divergence between targets that do support and do not support specific response schemas. I would rather prefer some flexibility in the response by using nullable tags that are just ignored by servers that do not use those tags. Theo >>> [log in to unmask] 14-05-02 16:05 >>> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote: > > Did we agree that there would be a response schema as opposed > > to a wsdl > > definition? Could someone summarize what we decided? > > The wsdl defines the response in SRW. But it doesn't. Not the one at http://www.lib.ox.ac.uk/jafer/zng/zng-p1.wsdl.html which is the current file (isn't it?) It just points to a schema. Can't the wsdl define the response rather than point to a schema? Is the reason that the wsdl doesn't do that now, that we thought there would be more than one possible response format, and wsdl can't handle that? If that's the reason, and if we now agree that there won't be more than one response format (do we agree?) then can we now define the response in the wsdl and get rid of rs1? --Ray