> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 16:55:29 -0400
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Yeuch. I've always thought of prefixes as the least
> > important part of CQL, only there as a (valuable)
> > afterthought to reduce the dependance on Explain.
> I'll second that! I'd be happy if it went away.
I'll pretend I didn't hear that :-)
> Since the parser writers are the ones that want it, I guess I can't
> complain. I'm hoping that all that baloney is invisible to me and
> the prefix will be replaced with the equivalent URI as part of the
> index name when I walk the parsed tree.
That's an interesting thought. It's not how _any_ of the three
parsers work at the moment because that's not how XCQL is defined; but
there's no reason we couldn't rejig the XCQL definition to include a
space for the index-set URI inside <searchClause>. Let's leave the
details till DC, though. It'll be easier to walk through with
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Before enlightenment, hard work; after enlightenment,
hard work" -- Guo Yunshen.
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at