I know I did in my concession note.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set model for srw
> Janifer Gatenby wrote:
> > .... However, I'm prepared
> > to live with the server always supplying a name.
> I don't see where we came to the suggestion that the result
> set be mandatory
> (assume for discussion sake that the server assigns the id).
> I suggested last
> week that we abandon the use of the cql-string as the result
> set id. So if the
> server doesn't assign a result set id, there's no result set.
> Who suggested that
> the server must always assign a result set id?