Re: Proposal: requesting XML records

> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:57:28 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
>
> > Wouldn't it be simpler to say:
> >
> >         Whenever the XML record syntax is specified, the ESN is
> >         interpreted as a URI.
> 
> No, for two reasons: (1) we don't want to rule out for example "XML"
> and "full". Even if we don't know what that means, and we don't want
> people doing it, I don't want to try to push an implementor
> agreement that covers this area quite so comprehensively.

Then the honest thing to do is define a nice, shiny, new record-syntax
OID meaning "XML record according to the schema identified in the
ESN".

> (2) what would "the ESN is interpreted as a URI" mean, anyway? We're
> not going to prescribe dynamic behavior upon encountering a URI.

Good point.  Then maybe we should shut up about URIs altogether.  We
could lose all the proposal's most confusing prose that way.  Then the
proposal reduces to "when the requested record syntax is XML, the ESN
contains a specification of the desired schema".

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Cold-hearted orb that rules the night // Removes the colors
	 from our sight // Red is gray, and yellow white // But we
	 decide which is right // And which is a quantization error"
	 -- ppmtopgm(1) manual entry.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
	http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 12:14:47 UTC