> 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
whiteboards.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/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
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/