# Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

John A. Kunze (jak@nlm.nih.gov)
Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:53:22 +0500

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Previous message: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"

    Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:53:22 +0500

    From: jak@nlm.nih.gov (John A. Kunze)

    Message-Id: <9503222153.AA25902@dot.csb>

    To: Z3950IW@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu, uri@bunyip.com

    Subject: Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:36:13 -0500
> From: mike gursky <mgursky@CDPLUS.COM>
>
> > In other words, the "?docid" construct would still be *included*, but would
> > be reduced to just "?". Perhaps I should change the wording to make it
> > reduce the chances of interpreting the syntax as restrictive in this case.
>
> And perhaps the syntax should have extra brackets around docid to make clear
> that this is permitted:
> ...
> [?[docid]
> ...

That seems reasonable to me. In summary, only in the z39.50s case
(not z39.50r) an empty docid is allowed, and it means "not specified".

Comments anyone? We are one or two days I think before the deadline
for revisions to the Internet Draft.

-John

- Next message: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Previous message: mike gursky: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Maybe in reply to: John A. Kunze: "new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"