On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>> I know that Rob has already addressed these points, but it really
>> can't be said too many times. SRW/U implementations simply may not do
>> this. They're just not allowed. It's not an implementation-level
>> decision, but a protocol-level one.
> Rob and Bill respectively have pointed out. I noted when this discussion
> came up before that I would define an extension "permission to send
> unsolicited data" and everyone seemed comfortable with this approach.
> So if a client is prepared to accept unsolicited extra data it includes
> this extension in the request. If it doesn't include it, then the rules
> disallowing unrequested extra data prevail.
Right.
Basically your extension says: Feel free to send me anything you want to.
But the client then is specifically saying that it will accept anything,
which is fine, as opposed to it being truly unsolicited, which is not.
For Bill to use this with this SRU client, however, you'll need to define
a x-info-1-acceptAny parameter name, or similar.
Rob
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Dept. of Computer Science, Room 805
,'---/::::::::::. University of Liverpool
____/:::::::::::::. L5R Shop: http://www.cardsnotwords.com/
I L L U M I N A T I
