Date:         Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:57:45 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Apologies it was Alan who started being sensible.

Re length on URL - there is an RFC somewhere which recommends that URLs
should not exceed 256 characters.

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Theo van Veen [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: 14 June 2002 10:48
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> Theo
> 
> 
> >>> [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.
> 
> 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
> > 
>