On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ray Denenberg wrote: > Janifer Gatenby wrote: > > > I think I am agreeing with you. My point is that there is no need to define > > the type of truncation when you position the truncation symbol. As such, I > > don't think that we are breaking alignment with Bath. > > But if we're assuming the equivalent of 104 truncation then you can put the > mask character in the middle of the string. A Bath search can't do that. So > can we still call it a Bath search? > > --Ray The 104 truncation gives the searcher more options (there is also that "#" option in 104), however, we can still represent the "narrower" requirement of the Bath searches by placing the "?" at the end of the search string. Larry