Date:         Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:48:35 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: result set position
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Yes, at least I do.

We can come to some sort agreement on the structure and content of the
surrogate to fix your bad feelings.  But I like have the placeholder.  It
makes life much simpler when records are going away dynamically.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set position
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > Why not a surrogate diagnostic in the middle of the
> records?  I like them.
>
> It's caused complexity for Z39.50 particularly in the ASN.1.
> I suspect it
> would cause similar complexity in the XML.  You have a
> sequence of records,
> each is a  "response record" which is either a "retrieval record" or a
> "surrogate diagnostic".  The retrieval record is accompanied
> by a record
> syntax (for srw, a record schema) and the surrogate
> diagnostic has its own
> funny format.
>
> Do we want this in srw?
>
> --Ray
>