Date:         Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:08:21 +0100
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: result set model for srw
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Ray Denenberg on Mon,
              17 Jun 2002 11:50:27 -0400)

> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:50:27 -0400
> From: Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
>
> > > We explored all of this, in great depth, at our first meeting a
> > > year ago.  There was strong sentiment not to do this as it would
> > > be a futile effort to define negotiation that wouldn't work in
> > > practice anyway.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> This is my recollection of the thinking when we discussed it a year
> ago: servers in general aren't going to be flexible enough to alter
> their behavior based on the user request, nor even to reject the
> request in advance.

I don't understand why we should compromise our protocol for the
benefit of such broken servers.

> In other words, optimally, if you had such a flag, you'd want the
> server to make the result set persistent if you asked it to; but
> lacking that, at minimum, you'd want the sever to tell you if it
> cannot honor the request.  The thinking was that as a practical
> matter servers can't even do the minumum, so a flag would not only
> be useless, it would be misleading.

Then these misbegotten piles of bits are simply not worthy to be
called SRW servers, surely?  We are _defining_ the protocol here.
Let's not give up on getting it right before we've even started.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <[log in to unmask]>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "But I remember ...  Three lions on the shirts; Jules Rimet
         still gleaming" -- Skinner, Baddiel & Broudie, "Football's
         Coming Home"
                ^
                |
                |
        Ah, how appropriate.