Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

mike gursky (
Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:36:13 -0500 (EST)

From: (mike gursky)
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:36:13 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <9503212105.AA24226@dot.csb> from "John A. Kunze" at Mar 21, 95 04:05:03 pm

> In other words, the "?docid" construct would still be *included*, but would
> be reduced to just "?".  Perhaps I should change the wording to make it
> reduce the chances of interpreting the syntax as restrictive in this case.

And perhaps the syntax should have extra brackets around docid to make clear
that this is permitted:

> I agree that it is reasonable for some uses of URLs.  The thinking behind
> these two Z39.50 URL schemes was to slice through a couple of important
> special problem areas somewhat restrictively, and possibly create a third
> scheme to implement more functionality (eg, a fully general Z39.50 URL)
> as it was called for.
> Do you have a specific application in mind that needs these hints today?

No, I don't have any specific application in mind.  And I guess the syntax
could be redefined in the future if necessary to be broader and still be
compatible with the current definition.