Print

Print


Oddly enough, I agree with Ralph.

-mark


On 10 Aug 2005 at 9:28, LeVan,Ralph wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
> > Mike Taylor
> >
> > ... and it's insufficient because it doesn't allow a client to specify
> > more complex record structures such as schema A contained in schema B
> > contained in schema C.
>
> And there's where I think I'm ready to draw the line.
>
> The beauty of what we have now is that the server tells the client what
> it can do and the client picks from among the options.  This arbitrary
> mix and match idea is just too much complexity.
>
> I'm happy with servers having their own identifiers for local record
> schemas that incorporate elements from other schemas.  I'd be in favor
> of a proposal that allowed an Explain record to describe the contents of
> that local schema.  But I think the current flock of proposals goes too
> far.
>
> Ralph (the curmudgeon)