I agree too.

Janifer

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 18 December 2003 16:21
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: versioning for context sets and record schemas


> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 13:47:18 +0000
> From: Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
>
> My preference would be to have a mandated CQL version for every SRW
> version.  They don't need to always increment at the same time (and
> with any luck, CQL 1.1 has enough extensability to never need to
> increment again!) but SRW can only change CQL versions when it goes
> up a version itself.

I can't remember if I've already agreed with this, but if not:
I agree!

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "FIFA would have treated me with more respect had my surname
         been longer" -- Paraguayan footballer Cayetano Re, on being
         ordered from the touchline during 1986 World Cup finals.

--
Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
        http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/