> Concerning my point 11, and Mike's currently unlisted proposal
> (http://zing.z3950.org/cql/profiles.html),

It's not exactly unlisted, as I've listed it as an agenda item. Do you want
me to put it in the proposals list?

>......I don't think that they're
> mutually exclusive, .....

I don't follow then. Mike's is an extensibility proposal, and you're
proposing that 'within' and 'encloses' be part of the core set. So I see
these as mutually exclusive.
--Ray


>even though it's listed as 'rejected' in Mike's
> proposal.  Rejected in the sense that it's not a general solution to new
> user communities taking up CQL.
>
> Within and Encloses should be part of the same 'set' of relations as any,
> all, and the various symbols, as they're applicable across many different
> domains.  Otherwise everyone will just need to add them to their own
> set, making a large headache. (eg for date searches, which was Ralph's
> original question)
>
> Rob
>
> --
>       ,'/:.          Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
>     ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
>   ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
> ,'---/::::::::::.    Nebmedes:  telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
> ____/:::::::::::::.                WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
> I L L U M I N A T I