 |
 |
> > Well, if you want to exclude web-browsers then you probably want to > > implement SRW rather than SRU (a server can support either > or both of > > Not necessarily. If this were the case then there would be > no arguments > about SOAP vs REST. While there are additional hooks for terminally > braindead clients in SRU (echoedRequest etc) that's not to say that it > should -only- be used with stylesheet based clients or that > it is intended > for these clients. The SRU off-shoot of SRW *was* originally for these clients (if memory serves), that isn't to say you can't use SRU for other purposes as you point out, but browser-based/thin clients *were* the original motivation. Whilst SRU has been retrospectively described as REST-like, it wasn't developed as a REST implementation of SRW. Indeed it would be inaccurate to describe it as REST since it doesn't follow many of the REST principles. The echoedRequests though I think are only for thin-browser clients and are only recommended for SRU and optional for SRW (and the only place where XCQL now features - alas, IMHO!) so Martin could avoid XCQL by not echoing requests. I don't know what Theo's view on this would be since he has (I think) one of the more advanced thin-browser clients. Matthew