Date:         Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:31:15 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: result set position
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Why not a surrogate diagnostic in the middle of the records?  I like them.

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 5:21 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: result set position
>
>
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I still don't understand.  If you sent back a surrogate
> > diagnostic, then there would be no gap in the numbers and
> you wouldn't send
> > back record #11.
>
> The idea is to not send the surrogate as a record (like we do
> in Z39.50), but
> separately, along with the other, possibly non-surrogate, diagnostics.
>
> But your point I suppose is that even then the client can
> infer the real record
> positions by looking at the diagnostics, assuming that they
> refer to a result
> set position. Though it would make it harder.
>
> Anyway I'll take it out.
>
> --Ray
>