> > > (and it is a big if) this is the case, then I think result set
> > > names need to make sense to users, hence I think the client needs
> > > to propose it. If its not the case, the server can allocate the
> > > name no problems.
> > Alan!). Typically users shouldn't be typing in CQL. There should be
> > a nice easy to use interface allowing them to build queries,
> > manipulate previous sets etc.
> I just wish to place on record my fundamental disagreement with this
> stance. Or at least, I agree with it as stated, with the word
> "Typically" in front, but not when that word is deleted, which is what
> Matthew implies. For sure, some users will want a "friendly"
> We saw this all time in my old job, when we made Collections
> Management Systems for museums. Users would start off with form-based
Agreed. And likewise.
Although I've bowed out of the session id debate, this is different enough
that I re-enter the fray. If the query isn't to be encoded in XML (which
I assume that it won't) then at least make it typable. If it's not
typable, why not make it XML which is easier to parse?
As far as not implementing SRW, I'll clarify that to I would simply be
forced to implement a non conformant SRW with respect to session ids.
(Which I interpret as not implementing SRW, because it doesn't conform to
,'/:. Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Twin Cathedrals: telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I