[tdwg-tapir] "partial" and "omit-ns" parameters

["Markus Döring (GBIF)"]

Hi Franck,
dropping the partial is my main concern really, as it is rather hard  
to implement. Especially as the whole idea of intermediate and lite  
providers is not to dynamically parse models and therefore have fixed  
output formats.

A bit similar is the namespace issue, but it's a rather small issue  
for implementation (although I doubt that the existing TAPIR lite  
providers really do implement this feature as it is not tested by the  
TAPIR tester). I am not sure if it is really that useful, as writing  
namespace aware xslts is not that hard - but things are getting harder  
if you want to write namespace agnostic xslts for responses with  
namespaces.

Markus




On Jan 22, 2009, at 11:34 AM, THEETEN Franck wrote:

>
> Hi Renato,
>
> Congratulation to you and Markus for all your work!
>
> Removing the "partial" parameter seems also a good solution to me as  
> it
> would certainly make maintenance of the intermediate provider easier  
> by
> simplifying the code it needs.
>
> But I would maybe keep the "omit-ns" parameter if we plan to use XSLT
> stylesheets to convert responses from the provider into webpages for
> Internet browsers.
> Namespace can be sometimes difficult to parse in xslt processor and
> keeping this attribute would allow a better compatibility between  
> search
> responses and the "exclude-result-prefixes" xsl attribute.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Franck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org
> [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces at lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of
> renato at cria.org.br
> Sent: mercredi 21 janvier 2009 21:45
> To: tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> Subject: Re: [tdwg-tapir] "partial" and "omit-ns" parameters
>
>
> Thanks, Tim.
>
> Actually the same provider can explicitly declare that it supports  
> more
> than one output model, so you don't need to have separate access  
> points.
>
> Anyway, the most important thing is that clients/networks can create  
> as
> many response structures as necessary if they want to work with  
> smaller
> pieces of the same big schema. So I don't think we will lose so much  
> if
> we remove the "partial" parameter.
>
> Best Regards,
> --
>
> Renato
>
>
>> Hi Renato,
>>
>> Congratulations with all your work.
>>
>>> I can see two solutions for this: 1) Specify that the "partial"
>>> parameter only needs to be supported by TAPIR Full, which will make
>>> the parameter
>>> specification more intricate. 2) Remove the "partial" parameter from
>>> the
>>> protocol.
>>
>> Since there appears no strong demand, I would be in favor of it
>> removed. For TAPIR Intermediate, a possible work around solution  
>> could
>
>> be 2 access points each with differing output models, one being a
>> subset of the other?
>>
>>> Markus is also suggesting to remove the "omit-ns" parameter from the
>>> protocol. "omit-ns" is used to indicate that search responses should
>>> not include any namespaces at all. If this is not being used by any
>>> network or
>>> client, I also don't mind removing it.
>>
>> I personally have never had a need to use it.  Most XML clients I use
>> have a "namespaceAware" parameter anyway.
>>
>>> Please let me know if you have any feelings about this.
>>
>> Well done again Renato
>>
>> Tim
>
>
> -- 
>
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
> ###########################################
>
> This message has been scanned by ICT - Africa Museum
>
> ________________________________________
> 22/1/2009 - Filtered through antispam by ICT
>
> _______________________________________________
> tdwg-tapir mailing list
> tdwg-tapir at lists.tdwg.org
> http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
>