mike at tecc.co.uk
Mon Mar 25 19:58:23 CET 2002
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:13:01 +0100
> From: Sebastian Hammer <quinn at indexdata.dk>
> > > Hmm... I would really like to have a way of saying "don't know",
> > > or "not saying". For instance, our robot at present doesn't
> > > check whether an att combo is scannable... it would be nicer, I
> > > think, if you were able to simply be silent on the issue.
I think this is pretty much essential. Otherwise we're forcing
harvesters with less than 100% information to lie.
> > I didn't want to force people with less functional servers (and we
> > all know that's most of them) to put in scan=false sort=false for
> > all of their indexes just to say that they don't support the
> > requests.
> > For your automatically generated descriptions I do see the point
> > of having an 'unknown' possibility. Should this be a third
> > explicit option, rather than just using #implied?
I guess I prefer the latter.
> Tough one. I like the idea of silence meaning "don't assume
> anything"... How would you feel about this? It would still be
> acceptable for a low-end server to do this (in particular, why
> should a server which doesn't support scan/sort have to say so for
> all indexes?) It's basically a softening of your original position
> that the absence of the flag is equivalent to "false". It's only a
> problem if this flies in the face of a commonly accepted use of
> boolean attributes in XML....
C'mon Rob, you're the XML guy here (especially now that Matthew seems
to have gone silent ... obviously overdosing on Rachmaninov.)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <mike at miketaylor.org.uk> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ If God hadn't meant us to eat, he'd have made us
More information about the Ex-plain