We last discussed this on the 12/12/2002 and agreed we may need to make
in consistent in 1.1
However, my preference would be for resultSetId for the same reasons I
gave then (which at the time you and Mike seemed to agree with), namely:
> I certainly don't like resultSetName for that same reason I argued
> against it in the schema. The idea [behind] the Id in resultSetId was
> was a server assigned unique identifier rather than a name (which
> implies typable, memorable, within a Z39.50 context client assigned
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:24 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: srw.resultSetName
> In the request, we talk about 'resultSetName's but in the response the
> parameter is called 'resultSetId' ... Can we pick either 'Id'
> or 'Name'
> and be consistent in 1.1?
> My preference woulb be 'Name'.
> ,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
> ,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
> ,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::. WWW:
> I L L U M I N A T I