Mike Taylor wrote:

> I've quoted this suggestion in its entirety so I have context in which
> to ask this question: who is looking forward to explaining all this to
> the ZIG, the W3C or anyone else?  Who's going to enjoy writing
> tutorials for this rat's nest of logic?

I don't see it as all that complicated: If the server supplies a result set
name then it guarantees (a good faith effort) to maintain a positional
result set. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Is that better?

> If we want to do serious IR, then we need result sets.  So let's have
> them in the protocol properly and have done.  If we prize simplicity
> over power, then let's NOT have them.  But please, not this
> wishy-washy, in-between, will-he won't-he compromise.

Just to be clear: your suggesting we decide either (a) the server always
returns a result set name, or (b) it never does.

I don't think we want to choose one of these alternatives. We have
implementors who want to do "serious IR" and implementors who "prize
simplicity over power".  I think we can accomodate both.

--Ray