Re: I2C and I2X proposal

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Lisa asked:

| Am I understanding correctly that for an OASIS-compliant implementation:
| 
| It is an RA policy decision to accept metadata beyond the OASIS-compliant
| metadata.

I should think so.

| -An RA can refuse to accept additional metadata.

I think it would have to be able to do so, as it can't be expected to interpret
any arbitrary data.

| -An RA can accept additional metadata (perhaps through an extension element
| in its own form of the DTD.)

Sure.  IMS needs it, apparently, and even XML.org probably will need it.

| -If an RA accepts additional metadata, it is the decision of the RA to
| return the additional metadata from an I2C request.

Yes, I think.  The idea of I2C is that you send whatever your favorite
flavor is.  You could send the same response as to an I2X request if
you had no extensions.

| -Only an OASIS-compliant metadata record can be returned from an I2X
| request.

That's what I'd propose; we should probably specify that the return from
an I2X request should have a "for more info" link so that the recipient
can know that sending an I2C request will result in a response that
is potentially useful.  (In the long run the info that I2C and I2X will return
different results might be shown in the registry's service description, as
in the Eco spec, but we're a long way from there now.)

regards, Terry