> 1) Allow local and global namespace prefixes.
> 2) Let the server decide what to do with unprefixed index names.
> 3) Let's try to define a list of unprefixed index names (instead of
> dc.xxxx) just to standardize the names (ambiguity is the clients risc).
> 4) Make sure Explain specifies the servers behaviour unambiguously
> Is this acceptable for everyone?

1: Yes. A global prefix is just a commonly agreed upon one.
2: Yes, who else would decide what to do with unprefixed names?
3: NO. And a resounding NO. See below.
4: Yes, it already does.


3:
Here's my list of names.

<#include "bib1.h">                       (many hundred)
<#include "collectable_card_games.h">     (many thousands)
<#include "email.h">                      (~100)
<#include "zthes.h">                       ?
<#include "network.h">                    (~10)
<#include "tei.h">                        (many many thousands)
<#include "archives.h">                   (see tei)
<#include "CIMI.h">                       (see tei)
<#include "artworld.h">                   (see tei)
<#include "OMRAS.h">                      (see tei)
<#include "lego.h">                       (see tei)
<#include "userregistry.h">               (~100)

.....

And after several more thousand umpteen names, we'll have exactly the same
problem of heraldic_title vs book_title vs personal_title vs
email_subject vs card_name, just without any way of grouping them
together by domain, which is effective what the prefix system does.

Once more, no.

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I