[Ex-plain] OIDs And Name

Mike Taylor mike at tecc.co.uk
Tue Apr 2 18:31:21 CEST 2002

> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:29:25 -0500
> From: Ray Denenberg <rden at loc.gov>
> > I want an OID that a client can specify as preferred record syntax
> > when it wants an Explain-- record.  Should that just be the XML
> > OID?  Maybe - I lost track of that discussion a long time ago.  If
> > so, then how can the client specify that it wants the Explain--
> > DTD rather than some other DTD?  I think it wouldbe bad if the
> > answer was "you have to use compSpec".
> This is a prime example of why I'm proposing compSpec-2.  The record
> syntax is just XML, and yes, that's not sufficient to indicate
> "explain", so the answer right now would be that you have to use
> compspec. What I'm proposing is a minature compspec that might
> include nothing more than a character encoding and schema.  So if
> the answer is "you have to use compspec-2" would that be so bad?

Er.  I guess not.  I suppose I am a bit unhappy about having Explain--
dependent on this sort of cutting-edge stuff, my fear being that it
will be a barrier to implementation.  But in practice, you don't
really need a record-syntax OID to search an Explain-- database, since
every record in the IR-Explain---1 database is Explain---compliant XML
anyway.  So that's OK then.

Thanks for the attribute-set OID, BTW.  Now mentioned at

 _/|_	 _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor   <mike at miketaylor.org.uk>   www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "The secret of success is sincerity.  Once you can fake that
	 you've got it made" -- Jean Giraudoux.

More information about the Ex-plain mailing list