 |
 |
I'm happy with these. Ralph > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 7:46 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: New Diagnostics proposal > > > 6: Unsupported parameter value > > Justification: Rather than trying to enumerate all the > possible things > that could go wrong with all parameters in SRU (maximumRecords is > negative, for example, which we deprecated as just stupid), > we should have > a single diagnostic meaning: "You sent the right parameter > name, but the > contents were garbage". This doesn't apply for SRW as the schema > constricts the types that can be sent/received. > > Details: Name of parameter > > > 7: Mandatory parameter not supplied > > Justification: As per above, I can send a searchRetrieve > operation via SRU > with no query or version. > > Details: Name of missing parameter > > > > Rob > > -- > ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask]) > ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/ > ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142 > ,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/ > ____/:::::::::::::. > I L L U M I N A T I >