> I might be willing to give on Completeness and Position, but not on
> truncation. The users need a consistent set of truncation rules.
Ok, it's time we addressed Joe Zeeman's suggestion (see separately
forwarded message). Joe is suggestion that truncation be explicit in
the query syntax. How do we feel about that?
So there are three possibilities:
1. Implicit truncation, as in the original rule where type 104 always
2. Truncation defined as part of the index, as in the bath searches.
3. Explicit truncation, expressed in the query string.
Note that if we go with either 1 or 3, we will have to abandon the idea
of defining Bath searches.