I did not use the word "sensible" so I assume you mix up my comments with someone else. 
With respect to escaping  I think it will be sufficient to prevent "%" and "&" ">" and "<" as part of URL parameters. Internet Explorer does escaping automaticaly. It has more to do with the fact that in combining javascript and XML it makes things difficult. The user will hopefully never see the resultsetid.

I do not know the length limit of URL's. It depends on the browsers and the server applications.  I just want to minimize the chance that a limit is reached.

But in general: keeping things human readable will help speeding up in realising stable applications and will lower the threshold or barrier to use the URL's in other applications for linking purposes. 


>>> [log in to unmask] 14-06-02 11:13 >>>
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.


> -----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