Re: requesting XML records

> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 15:21:58 -0000
> From: "Matthew Dovey" <matthew.dovey@las.ox.ac.uk>
> 
> > (It's frustrating to spend so much energy developing elegant, 
> > high-quality, and well-engineered protocol mechanisms, to 
> > solve problems for which version 3 was invented, only to be 
> > told later that we have to solve the problem in the context 
> > of version 2, when version 2 simply isn't suited to solving these
> > problems.
> 
> Version 2 predates XML by a few years - it isn't surprising that
> version 2 isn't well suited to support XML.

All true, but the problem we're trying to solve here is nothing to do
with XML _per se_ -- it's simply a question of how to specify what
schema you want your records back in (whether that's a GRS-1 schema,
and XML Schema or something else again).  The frustrating thing is
that v3 has a fine way of doing this, but we are not planning to use
it.

(The XML part of this is that we _extended_ the pre-existing V3 schema
specification functionality to allow schema names, as used in XML, as
well as schema OIDs.  But that's really by the by.)

> V3 has been on the streets for 8 years now (a company such as MS
> would probably have declared end of life on anythnig older than that
> ;-) ), so saying the v2 doesn't support XML and that you need to
> move to v3 if you want XML doesn't seem that unreasonable to me!

I agree.  Shame, then, that the Bath profile doesn't say that.

> Should I duck now?

Probably, but I will too.  <duck>

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@indexdata.com>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's
	 advantage" -- Japan's announcement of surrender, 1945.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
	http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 11:20:47 UTC