W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

Re: requesting XML records

From: Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 21:58:54 GMT
Message-Id: <200303282158.h2SLwsP27243@badger.miketaylor.org.uk>
To: Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl
CC: www-zig@w3.org, Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl

> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 22:37:21 +0100
> From: "Theo van Veen" <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
> > > Right. But to add some level of complexity: I do not mind having
> > > names for brief and full DCX for example as long as it remains
> > > clear that it is DCX. If different servers put different terms
> > > in brief DCX I don't mind for the simple reason that what people
> > > put in there will for 90% be something that I understand and the
> > > other 10% I just ignore.
> > 
> > But unless there's a registry (or profiling), there's no guarantee
> > that my server agrees with your client that DCX is "Dublin Core,
> > Extended".  It might just as well be "Deep Custard, X-rated".
> Agreed. A schema saying "Qualified Dublin Core + <any /> for the
> rest" will do, I think.  although our applications are intelligent
> enough to allow for agreements on a higher level.

So what we seem to be converging on is the following agreement: "When
we are requesting XML records, the element-set name can be construed
to mean whatever the profile wants it to".  But that's _always_ been
true, whatever record syntax is requested.

So what have we actually _done_ here?  Anything?

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  Live fast, Die old.

Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 16:59:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:26:05 UTC