That's OK with me.

>>> [log in to unmask] 22-06-2005 17:48 >>>
How about Theo and I form the basis of a (dreaded word) sub-committee
to try
and draw up a functionality list and method of extension?

If someone else who will be at the meeting will make this public and
ask for
others interested to come and see me at ALA or email their interest,
might be able to get something done quickly and with reasonably broad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Rob Sanderson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 8:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: Multiple Sources in SRU/W
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 00:59 +0200, Theo van Veen wrote:
> > Perhaps it makes sense to have a list of "unregistered" or
> > extensions on the same page that lists the registered extensions.
> To clarify: if someone has gone to the trouble of writing up the
> extension and telling us about it then it *is* registered. We
> don't make any 'approval' of extensions that are registered, but we
> of course try to help anyone who is having difficulty to create the
> extension so that others will feel confident in using it as well.
> > I agree with Peter that the lack of such an extension can be a
> > showstopper and I agree with Ralph and and Rob that too much
> > can be a showstopper as well. Therefore we need to find the right
> > balance between specifying what is part of the standard and
> > what is being used by individual implementors.
> As in all cases, we should, in my opinion, draw up a list of the
> functionality which is required but not present in the base
> Then come to some agreement on how that should be expressed as an
> extension.  If there is interest in the future once it has been
> implemented and tested as an extension, it can be migrated into the
> protocol proper.
> -- Rob