Re: [tdwg-tapir] "partial" and "omit-ns" parameters
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@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of renato@cria.org.br Sent: mercredi 21 janvier 2009 21:45 To: tdwg-tapir@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
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@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces@lists.tdwg.org] On Behalf Of renato@cria.org.br Sent: mercredi 21 janvier 2009 21:45 To: tdwg-tapir@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@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@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
participants (2)
-
"Markus Döring (GBIF)" -
THEETEN Franck