# Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification

mike gursky (mgursky@cdplus.com)
Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:51:43 -0500 (EST)

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

    From: mgursky@cdplus.com (mike gursky)

    Message-Id: <9503211551.AA23732@cdplus.com>

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

    To: z3950iw@nervm.nerdc.ufl.edu, uri@bunyip.com

    Date: Tue, 21 Mar 1995 10:51:43 -0500 (EST)

    In-Reply-To:  <199503140336.TAA20378@violet.berkeley.edu> from "John A. Kunze" at Mar 13, 95 07:36:27 pm

As written, the syntax for z39.50s does not seem to allow for other
parameters without the presence of docid:

z39.50s://host[:port]
[/database[+database...]
[?docid
[;esn=elementset]
[;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]]

Furthermore, the draft implies that other parameters may appear without the
presence of database name(s).

It seems that what is intended is something like:

z39.50s://host[:port]
[/
[database[+database...][?docid]]
[;esn=elementset]
[;rs=recordsyntax[+recordsyntax...]]]

The language for z39.50r implies that the client will use the present
capability of the search service. However, a client could just as well
use a separate present request. I think the draft should be neutral
regarding how the protocol is used to retrieve records.

Mike Gursky
mgursky@cdplus.com

- Next message: Michael Shapiro: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- Previous message: michael rabinovich: "Re: The Path URN Specification"
- In reply to: John A. Kunze: "new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"
- Next in thread: John A. Kunze: "Re: new draft of Z39.50 URL specification"