- From: Matthew Dovey <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:48:59 +0100
- To: "Robert Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>, "Sebastian Hammer" <quinn@indexdata.dk>
- Cc: "Eliot Christian" <echristi@usgs.gov>, <www-zig@w3.org>
> > 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. > > Not necessarily. If people don't want to support on-the-fly style sheets, > they can use the URI as a string identifier in the same way as they could > use XPATH as a string identifier. But then we need to know what stylesheets a server supports in advance. The URI is now little more that element set name such as we already a have with B, F etc. (as in section 3.6.2 of the 1995 doc.). Since an element set name is an arbitrary string, there's nothing to stop a given implementation using strings which conform to a URI, but apart from being able to write "uses URI's" on the box, this gives us no real additional functionality over what we have already. Matthew
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 08:49:01 UTC