> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:07:59 -0500
> From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> I stuff support Matthew's relation-modifier approach.

(By the way, I've just noticed that I accidentally typed "stuff" here
when I meant to say "still".  Bizarre.  I wonder what _that_ tells
us?)

> Sorry, but the prox version is the "right way" to do it.
> 
> I don't see how one implementation would be any harder than the other.

Hmm.

My immediate feeling was that a prox-based solution would just scare
everyone off because, well, prox is scary.  But maybe people feel the
same way about relation-modifiers, too.

Maybe the pragmatic approach is to introduce a new boolean, "with",
which is explicitly defined to nothing more or less than an
abbreviation of prox/unit=element/distance=0.  Then server
implementors can tackle "with" free of Proximity Fear.

 _/|_	 ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\  "I'd have to agree with you ...  If you were right" -- Robin
	 Williams, "Awakenings"