Media type vs. response type

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

 

From the meeting minutes:

 

"Media type vs. response type. We have not sufficiently distinguished between these.  Since application/sru+xml is both a media type and a response type, and because it is expected to be the predominant response type, we have overlooked the fact that a media type is not always a response type. If you want a response in ATOM then you will indicate that as the media type (via the httpAccept parameter or via http accept header). But ATOM  is not itself an SRU response type. There is an however an ATOM extension supplied in an annex.  But there is no way to indicate in a request that that particular extension (vs. another ATOM extension which is also an SRU response type) is desired.  Discussion on this will continue via email.   There are two suggestions: (1) add additional values for recordPacking parameter; (2) add an additional parameter, responseType. Objections to the first suggestion are that this is at the response level, not record; it stretches the semantics of the recordPacking parameter; and it is not extensible. Objections to the second suggestion is the complexity of adding another parameter. "

 

So let's please move this discussion along:

  I propose that we add a parameter responseType.   It's value would be a URI, identifying a defintion of some extention (not necessarily registered) to a media type that tells how that type is to be used as an SRU response. 

 

--Ray