At 22:34 17-06-2002 +0100, Robert Sanderson wrote:
> > You mean like the XML format Eliot and I came up with for Type-101 queries
> > (see http://www.gils.net/search.html)?
>
>Like that yes. But not so complex as we don't need <relation> and
><semantic> and <NameOfAttributeIJustInventedOffTheTopOfMyHead> etc.
>
>Take current CQL and wrap appropriate XML tags around the various bits in
>it.

Some benefits of Rob's proposal:

o Syntax is unambiguous and easy to verify even for non-CS people (I don't
think that tools for verifying expressions against BNF specs are commonplace).

o It's easy to parse.

o It's easy to construct in software.

o It can be manipulated in XSLT without resorting to gymnastics.

o It's neatly extensible in the future without kludging stuff into a human
syntax.

o People will never make the mistake of allowing their users to type it in
(and hence give Matthew heart palpitations).

Note btw that XQuery (or did, last I looked) postulates both a
human-friendly syntax and an XML encoding.

--Sebastian
--
Sebastian Hammer, Index Data <http://www.indexdata.dk/>
Ph: +45 3341 0100, Fax: +45 3341 0101