> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:16:27 +0100
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>> (iii) - I'm not sure I'm happy about allowing this as a valid
>> interpretation as in my view serverChoice should be used when the
>> client doesn't care how the search is done, not as a way of doing a
>> search which is not otherwise possible using the indexes otherwise
>> supported by the server.
> ServerChoice indicates that the client doen't care about that either.
I agree with Theo again. (! :-)
I think that by using cql.serverChoice (or, equivalently, by saying
nothing at all about the index) a client is saying "Jeez, _I_ don't
know!", and this is a perfectly legitimate thing for a client to say.
I would almost support the addition of cql.Jeez_I_dontKnow as a
synonym for cql.serverChoice.
> BTW Some [...] extraResponsData giving some information on how this
> particular response was obtained might be helpful for subsequent
> searches for that specific target.
Ooh, nice idea!
> [...] (optional requested) [...]
Oi! Don't start all _that_ again! :-)
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "Personally, I don't think its sexual dimorphism. I'm all
for it, but not in this case" - Tracy L. Ford.
Listen to free demos of soundtrack music for film, TV and radio