 |
 |
Hi: I guess if that is the real position then we could support SRU URL in and SRU XML out for power users, and SRU in and arbitrary XHTML out for regular end users in an MGX sort of way. Wouldn't that mean we could offer full SRU compliance for those who could consume the SRU XML, and at least standardize the request half on an SRU querystring? We are looking to achieve a reasonable middle ground here to at least rachet our search interface up towards some kind of standards compliance. Cheers, Tony On 25/4/06 16:39, "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:25/4/06 16:39 > I'm afraid it doesn't seem to be SRU if you return HTML. When you return a > stylesheet, you still return XML and have the browser render the XML to HTML. > > I'm afraid that you're closer to OpenSearch than you are to SRU, but > OpenSearch doesn't define a standard query grammar. > > Rob Sanderson has had discussions with the OpenSearch folks about support for > CQL. He might have a suggestion for you. > > Ralph > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: SRU (Search and Retrieve Via URL) Implementors [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> On Behalf Of Tony Hammond >> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:12 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: SRU Question re XML Processing >> >> (This is a copy of a private mail I sent to Ray D. over a couple months >> ago >> and to which he graciously replied, but also suggested that I send to the >> list to get a wider perspective. Apologies for not mailing sooner but got >> sucked up into some other projects, though ready to refocus on this now. >> Appreciate any guidance. And very much hoping the answer is "Yes!" :) >> >> Hi: >> >> Got a question that you may be able to help us out with. We (NPG) are >> looking to make available some HTML snippets that folks can cut and paste >> onto their own websites which would provide a search textbox on their >> pages >> to run against our own search indexes and return (in first instance) our >> standard HTML result pages. I have been thinking that we shouldn¹t really >> be >> using our ASP search syntax (because proprietary, obscure, account in >> plaintext, etc.) but rather a Œstandard¹ search syntax. >> >> Naturally SRU springs to mind (as does OpenSearch). Mapping (either) URI >> querystring is trivial. Question I have is more particular. SRU returns >> XML >> to the user (with possibly a stylesheet reference attached). Is it >> acceptable (in the SRU scheme of things) to allow for the possibility of >> an >> intermediary (in this case, our own server) to render the XML and deliver >> HTML back to the user. Does that break the spirit of SRU? I could imagine >> that initially (since we anyway deliver HTML) that one could have a Œfaux¹ >> stylesheet reference which could be applied to the result set and serve up >> HTML to the user. We do also have the ability to acquire raw XML back from >> the ASP, and so could also provide alternate Œsnippets¹ which would allow >> for querying with SRU and getting native SRU XML docs back, or with (real) >> stylesheets to get other renderings, e.g. (X)HTML includes, RSS, etc. >> >> Does this make sense in the SRU context, to allow for the possibility that >> a >> server could intermediate the SRU return on the basis of a stylesheet >> reference included in the XML document (whether real or faux). And with a >> stylesheet reference we could just return native SRU XML? I don¹t want to >> run against the spirit of SRU. (And still need to catch up with latest >> version of OpenSearch.) >> >> Thanks for any comments you may have time for. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony >> >> ************************************************************************** >> ****** >> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone >> who is >> not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in >> error >> please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other >> storage >> mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents >> accept >> liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and >> not >> expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its >> agents. >> Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its >> agents >> accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail >> or >> its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and >> attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan >> Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. >> Macmillan >> Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number >> 785998 >> Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS >> ************************************************************************** >> ****** ******************************************************************************** DISCLAIMER: This e-mail is confidential and should not be used by anyone who is not the original intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and delete it from your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or one of its agents. Please note that neither Macmillan Publishers Limited nor any of its agents accept any responsibility for viruses that may be contained in this e-mail or its attachments and it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any). No contracts may be concluded on behalf of Macmillan Publishers Limited or its agents by means of e-mail communication. Macmillan Publishers Limited Registered in England and Wales with registered number 785998 Registered Office Brunel Road, Houndmills, Basingstoke RG21 6XS ********************************************************************************