Date:         Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:18:24 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Library Of Congress
Subject:      Re: result set model for srw
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Janifer Gatenby wrote:

> .... However, I'm prepared
> to live with the server always supplying a name.

I don't see where we came to the suggestion that the result set be mandatory
(assume for discussion sake that the server assigns the id).  I suggested last
week that we abandon the use of the cql-string as the result set id.  So if the
server doesn't assign a result set id, there's no result set. Who suggested that
the server must always assign a result set id?

--Ray