> I do not believe that this approach was ever discussed; and in any
> case it is very much inferior to the simple use of "eq".
Well first, I think 'eq' is a poor solution, and second, yes we did have
discussion -- endless discussion (on the Ed. Board list) and while it's
not productive to rehash it, it's worth highlighting a few conclusions:
- it is confusing to have both an '=' and 'eq' relation
- but '=' to replace 'scr' is overwhelming favored, so we need an equality
relation (to replace the changed '=') -- indeed anchoring was discussed, as
the way string matching is done for bibliographic data -- but an explicit
equality relation was also discussed
-One solution discussed was to replace '<' with 'lt', '>' with 'gt' etc. but
the suggestion was not well received
So, neither '=' nor 'eq' is a solution for equality. As I look back on the
discussion it wasn't clear that 'exact' was to be depricated.
I suggest 'exact' for explicit equality. I think it's better than 'eq'.
(We can treat anchoring, for bib data, in the bib profile.)