> I am half inclined to write this off as "out of band agreement".  I
> don't think any of us wants to see more new syntax in CQL to have
> queries specify what CQL version they're using.

So let's leave aside how the version is indicated when cql is used outside
of srw, assume it's not in the cql string, assume further that cql will be
wrapped in something, and that it's that something's responsibility. So when
that something is srw, that leaves us with the question of how srw specifies
the cql version.

>Don't forget that,
> for the SRW case, the CQL version can be disovered from the ZeeRex
> record.

Is that sufficient?  The client would discover what? The highest version
supported?  The only version supported?  Is it reasonable to mandate that
the client must supply cql in the version that the server specifies in
ZeeRex?  Or should we add a cql-version parameter to srw?   (In that case it
wouldn't be like the srw version paraemeter, which says what version it
wants for the response --  it would say "this is the version of the
following cql string".)

--Ray