Date:         Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:47:37 GMT
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Betr.: serverChoice interpretations
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Theo van Veen on Mon, 10
              Jan 2005 10:16:27 +0100)

> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:27 +0100
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> (iii) - I'm not sure I'm happy about allowing this as a valid
>> interpretation as in my view serverChoice should be used when the
>> client doesn't care how the search is done, not as a way of doing a
>> search which is not otherwise possible using the indexes otherwise
>> supported by the server.
>
> ServerChoice indicates that the client doen't care about that either.

I agree with Theo again.  (!  :-)

I think that by using cql.serverChoice (or, equivalently, by saying
nothing at all about the index) a client is saying "Jeez, _I_ don't
know!", and this is a perfectly legitimate thing for a client to say.
I would almost support the addition of cql.Jeez_I_dontKnow as a
synonym for cql.serverChoice.

> BTW Some [...] extraResponsData giving some information on how this
> particular response was obtained might be helpful for subsequent
> searches for that specific target.

Ooh, nice idea!

> [...] (optional requested) [...]

Oi!  Don't start all _that_ again!  :-)

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "Personally, I don't think its sexual dimorphism.  I'm all
         for it, but not in this case" - Tracy L. Ford.

--
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/soundtrack/