Then the server can either do the search if it can (without being pedantic and saying that I know what you want me to do, but that is not a true Bath search) or send a diagnostic, e.g. 120 - unsupported truncation attribute. Janifer -----Original Message----- From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, 17 May 2002 16:23 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: cql index definitions 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