> Concerning my point 11, and Mike's currently unlisted proposal
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.
>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)
> ,'/:. 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