A well-known bath prefix is fine by me. It's unlikely to collide with
From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 3:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: bath prefix for cql
In order to move along and provoke discussion, I'm
proposing that we define a well-known cql prefix
for Bath searches.
We can continue to debate whether prefixes must
always be discoverable by explain, and the way I
see it, some will, and others will be well-known.
Thus for example, if Ralph really has a Deep
Custard prefix, then he would speak up when DC is
proposed as a well-known prefix (and we would
agree not to make DC well-known).
I'm suggesting a well-known prefix, "bath".
(Speak up if you want to otherwise use bath as a
I've attached a number of searches (19) derived
Please comment on this; if it looks ok I'd like to
put it up on the srw page; we need to get
concrete/real examples up soon.