> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0500
> From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]>
>> But to summarise the relationship between CCL and CQL: the
>> intention when CQL was being design (initially by Ralph, and
>> subsequently by the SRW editorial board as a whole) was that it
>> should be pretty much a superset of CCL, and that it therefore sets
>> out to provide _additional_ syntax rather than _alternative_
>> syntax. So what you would hope to find is that most CCL queries
>> are also CQL queries with the same interpretation, but that you go
>> on to say much more in CQL.
> AFAIK, one of the crucial differences (unless this was changed in
> CQL?) is that the CCL spec doesn't require quotes around multi-word
> terms... this makes the grammar and parsing of CCL queries somewhat
> more challenging.
Hmm, I thought that was one of Adam's private enhancements. Darn! If
only the standard were actually _available_, we could check! :-)
(And, by the way, the absence of that facility in CQL is a mistake.)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult
way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple
way" -- Charles Bukowski.