I'm sorry, but I don't follow this... On 19 January 2011 13:27, Ed Summers <e...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Would it be too restrictive to require SWORD collections to only > support one package format? This would mean that there MUST be > one and only one sword:acceptPackaging per app:collection in the > service document. I think this would simplify matters significantly > for implementors since: > It might be too restrictive if you have mixed content in a collection. But in most cases, probably not. However... Also, I am -1 on SWORD requiring a standard package format. I think it > would be fine to list some preferences, and light-weight, community > driven mechanisms for identifying them, but that's as far as SWORD > should go IMHO. > > If we don't standardise on a packaging format (for at least a subset of content that we are interested in), and only allow having one format per collection, then we can forget any possibility of SWORD being used for interoperability, and possibly even for having deposit tools that work with a range of different repositories. I would also be very concerned about the ability to evolve a repository / service if we don't provide for content negotiation. Without the ability to support more than one package format for a collection, then the only way roll out new packaging formats to cope missing data, open up new features, etc. is to abruptly cut off support of the old format. That could cause all sorts of problems with existing clients that may be trying to use SWORD. G
