I was a little concerned by your comment "If a user is going to use in a follow up query, then it should be sensible shouldn't it?" If by sensible, you just mean that it can be put in a URL without a) requiring escaping b) exceeding the 256 recommended maximum length for a URL Then I agree with you We may need to include some limits on result set ids (e.g. allowed characters and max recommended length) For a while I though "sensible" might mean human readable, which I don't think appropriate here. Matthew > -----Original Message----- > From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: 14 June 2002 09:43 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw > > > There is no reason to assume that SRU confuses things. I do > not think people are going to type in queries as URL's > (although I sometimes do). The only thing that is important > for SRU is that we keep the parameters URL friendly so that > we do not need an extra level of escape sequences and that we > keep them short. > > Theo > > > >>> [log in to unmask] 14-06-02 10:14 >>> > > > If we have (persistent) result set names, do we still need session > > > ids? > > > > > > --Ray > > > > One unanswered question to me (it might have been decided > > already sorry): who invents result sets names? If the server > > just generates them, is there any obligation for the name to > > be sensible? If a user is going to use in a follow up query, > > then it should be sensible shouldn't it? > > They are generated by the server. If this isn't clear in the > current doc.s then it should be. > > Result set name is probably a misnomer - what this actually > is, is a id for referencing the result set in order to > maintain state. It isn't meant to be a nice easy name > presented to the user! At the end of the day (although SRU > used with thin clients and XSLT confuses the issue > slightly) this is an on the wire protocol not a user > interface definition! > > Matthew >