- From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:48:06 +1000
- To: www-zig@w3.org
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 11:32:54AM -0400, Ray Denenberg wrote: > Thanks for the comments on this proposal. It's been updated. See: > http://www.loc.gov/z3950/agency/proposals/request-xml.html > --Ray I may have been out of things for a bit, but was there some reason why Comp-spec was explicitly excluded? "If Comp-spec is used, this agreement does not apply." Is the purpose to say Comp-spec is out of scope (not defined) or that it is recommended that Comp-spec *should not* support these set names. I can understand Comp-spec being undefined/out of scope. But it would seem wrong to disallow it. Another observation (not a problem, just an observation), from memory element set names are not case sensitive (in a quick skim of standard I could not find this just now, but I recall seeing it previously). URIs on the other hand are case sensitive. I guess there is no issue as long as clients are told to always supply the URI with the correct case. (If they don't, should it still work - maybe just undefined). But as I said, probably not an issue in practice so not worth mentioning. Alan
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 18:48:14 UTC