"Rather, OpenSearch descriptions provide a _different URL template_ for every response IANA content type available" Yes, of course, that's what I meant, I said it somewhat slopily, but in many of the examples we've looked at, it comes down to the same thing, that the different templates differ only in a single (hard-coded) parameter. --Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Rochkind" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] OASIS SRU and CQL, access to most-current drafts > Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: >> 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. >> > No, they don't. I am having this same debate with Tony Hammond. > > OpenSearch descriptions do NOT provide a parameter to allow the client to > tell the server what response it wants. They also don't easily provide for > content negotiation, it is true. > Rather, OpenSearch descriptions provide a _different URL template_ for > every response IANA content type available. Here is the example from the > OpenSearch documentation: > > <Url type="application/rss+xml" > xmlns:example="http://example.com/opensearchextensions/1.0/" > > template="http://example.com?q={searchTerms}&c={example:color?}"/> > > Please note that application/rss+xml is an attribute of the URL template > itself, it is NOT a parameter in the template. > > If SRU added an accept parameter to try and make OpenSearch happy, this is > a big mistake, because it in fact _conflicts_ with OpenSearch desc -- > to make it available as an actual parameter in the OpenSearch URL > template. > > If on the other hand, you just want to hard-code it in though, that could > make some sense. > > <Url type="application/rss+xml" > xmlns:example="http://example.com/opensearchextensions/1.0/" > > template="http://my-sru-server.com?q={searchTerms}&accept=application%2Frss"/> > > That might make sense, if that's the use case. But actually trying to > provide a parameter for the _client_ to fill out in an OpenSearch desc in > fact _conflicts_ with OpenSearch, for better or for worse the respones > type is _hard coded_ into the template. > > Jonathan > > > >> (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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >>