From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>

>  .... we do need at
> least start:length, where both start and length are positive integers.

You mean   start:end    I hope.

The proposal originally had start:length but was changed to start:end.  I
assume we don't want to (arbitrarily) change that back. Please let's not,
unless there is a compelling reason, and I can't find one in this thread.

Asuming that, looking at the existing proposal
http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/cql/substring.html

and as a result of this discussion, what have we agreed to:

1. change from zero- to one-based.
2. make "end' optional (if omitted, "end" is end-of-string)
3.
Anything else?

If "end" must be postive (as Rob implies above) then we also get rid of all
the wraparound stuff?


--Ray