- From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:50:16 +0200
- To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
- Cc: Eliot Christian <echristi@usgs.gov>, <www-zig@w3.org>
At 12:31 22-04-2002 +0100, Robert Sanderson wrote: > > Yes, this is a good notion. Actually, given a known initial schema, it > > makes sense for the client to submit an XSLT stylesheet to request a > > transformation of each result set record prior to shipment. In my mind, > > this is exactly equivalent to the use of Espec-1, only more powerful, and > > standardised to boot. > >Can't we do that now by giving a URI in elementSetNames which refers to an >XSLT style sheet, rather than dumping potentially very long stylesheets >dynamically at the server for every request? For retrieval purposes, >specifying a style sheet and specifying a schema for the record to be >returned in result in the same outcome -- you get the record in a certain >format. Giving the URI as opposed to shipping the StyleSheet is arguably a simplification, although it does force the Z39.50 server to act as a HTTP client, and it requires the stylesheet to be available somewhere public. But again, it makes no sense to give the server a stylesheet unless you also have a way of telling the server what schema you expect the data to be in *at the beginning* of the transformation. You gotta say: "I would like this data in Schema X and *THEN* apply stylesheet Y to it. Otherwise, you're always relying on the server to make data available in one specific schema." I think we need CompSpec for this... that allows you to give the schema. Then we just need a convention for using a stylesheet as an alternative to Espec-1. --Sebastian -- Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/> Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 07:49:32 UTC