- From: mike gursky <mgursky@cdplus.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:36:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: z3950iw@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu, uri@bunyip.com
> 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: ... [?[docid] ... > 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. Mike mgursky@cdplus.com
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 1995 16:39:15 UTC