"In today's RESTful world, what's the requirement for the httpAccept
parameter? "
Ralph will probably be able to articulate this better than I can, but the
accept parameter is driven by the requirement to be able to use OpenSearch
(for example) to query an SRU server. The description document isn't going
to provide templates that allow you to do this via content negotiation, they
provide a parameter instead, to allow the client to tell the server that it
wants, for example, an rss response.
(I suggest, though, that you move further discussion of this to the SRU
list.)
--Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Robert Sanderson
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] OASIS SRU and CQL, access to most-current drafts
In today's RESTful world, what's the requirement for the httpAccept
parameter? Isn't straight content negotiation sufficient rather than
pulling the headers into the URI?
What happens if the accept header and the httpAccept parameter say different
things?
Rob
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:37 PM, LeVan,Ralph <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'd code it. (I have already coded to it.) For me, the httpAccept
> parameter and support for content negotiation on responses is a
> wonderful addition to the standard. It lets us be OpenSearch
> compliant finally.
>
> The virtue of coding to the draft is that there's a chance we can fix
> any problems you encounter. While we consider the draft stable, that
> doesn't mean everything has been tested in the real world. I'm
> particularly nervous about the facets support I championed. I asked
> for it to support users of my SRW server framework who wanted to
> create an interface to SOLR. Those users disappeared and the
> usability of the SRU interface is untested.
>
> Ralph
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of
>> Jonathan Rochkind
>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:18 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] OASIS SRU and CQL, access to most-current
> drafts
>>
>> Wait, I'm so confused. Is SRU 2.0 actually a published standard, or
> are
>> you just showing us a work in progress that nobody should be writing
>> code to yet?
>>
>> I'm confused because I thought it was just a draft work in progress,
> but
>> then you talk about official vs unofficial copies... an unofficial
> copy
>> of a draft work in progress that isn't a spec yet anyway? Very
> confused.
>>
>> If I'm planning on writing software to SRU... do you recommend I use
> the
>> (until now not publically available so I didn't have a choice)
>> "unofficial" SRU 2.0 thing, or is that still just a draft work in
>> progress nobody should be writing software to yet?
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote:
>> > For those of you who have recently asked about current OASIS drafts
> of SRU
>> > (2.0) and CQL ...
>> >
>> > The *official* versions reside at OASIS, but because of confusing
> (and
>> > sometimes inaccessible) links, as well as uncertainty about status
>> > (because of imbedded dates), we now maintain *unofficial copies*
>> > of
> the
>> > most current versions at:
>> >
>> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/oasis/current/sru-2-0.doc
>> > http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/oasis/current/cql.doc
>> >
>> > We will continue to maintain copies of the most current version at
> these
>> > URLs.
>> >
>> > --Ray
>> >
>> >
>
|
