> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:58:32 +0000
> From: Ashley Sanders <[log in to unmask]>
>
>>>> ignoreCase
>>>> respectCase
>>
>> Surely one of these is unnecessary ?.
>
> If so, then one of:
>
> ascendingOrder
> descendingOrder
>
> would also be unnecessary. Actually I think we need all
> four so the user/programmer can be explicit in her intentions
> and need not rely on a default that a server may or may not
> have implemented.

Precisely.

Based on your suggestion, Ashley, and on subsequent Editorial Board
discussion, we've revised the index-modifiers listed in the sorting
proposal at
http://zing.z3950.org/cql/sorting.html#6
as follows:

caseInsensitive
caseSensitive
ascending
descending
missingOmit
missingFail
missingLowest
missingHighest
missingValue=value

As you'll see, we ended up plumping for explicitness over brevity --
not my own favourite approach, but the closest thing to a consensus.

 _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ Women ... They're less trouble than they're worth.