> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:48:07 +1100
> From: Alan Kent <[log in to unmask]>
>
> I would have thought either a version of SRW says the version of CQL
> being used, or if you wrap CQL queries in an element, that element
> somehow identifies the version of CQL. I think its better (simpler)
> for a version of SRW to identify the version of CQL it is using.

I agree.

> > For that matter if cql is used outside of srw, how is the version
> > to be indicated?
>
> The environment can define the version of CQL. I don't think a CQL
> string should contain version identification.

I agree.

> > And the cql context set -- do we assume that its version is the
> > same as the cql version?
>
> I would have said yes - a CQL version defines the context set
> version.

I am uncomfortable about this special-casing, and I don't see how it's
necessary.  At the moment this is just _one_ special case defined in
CQL, and that is that unqualified relations and modifiers are taken
from the set whose prefix is "cql" rather than from the currrently
prevailing set used for indexes.  But I don't think we need to nail
down what the "cql" prefix is mapped to.  We know that 99% of
applications will map it to the CQL Context Set that we know and love,
but I see no utility in adding extra rules to remove the possibility
of some, as yet unanticipated, applications doing things differently.

 _/|_    _______________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  It's a million-to-one chance -- but it might just work.

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