> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:21:00 +0100 > From: Matthew Dovey <[log in to unmask]> > > > > No, No, No, No, No (you've stopped being sensible now Alan!). > > > Typically users shouldn't be typing in CQL. > > > > I just wish to place on record my fundamental disagreement with > > this stance. [...] Some users will want a "friendly" (i.e. dumbed > > down) UI for querying. But in any serious application, there will > > be "professional" users who need access to the power of CQL. > > Aaaaagh! - SRW is suppose to be about defining an on the wire > protocol *NOT* a user query language (IMHO). These are different > endeavours (albeit admittedly related). I suspect basing CQL on CCL > is causing more confusion here. Well, this is another issue that will quickly degenerate into a sequence of "Oh no it isn't", "Oh yes it is", so I will make a brief statement then bow out. CQL was _always_ designed to be human-comprehensible (ain't it so, Ralph?) Why do that if not so that humans can read it and write it. > I don't disagree that a UI may wish to provide an advance text > string way of entering queries [...] If I want to provide a human > typeable query langauge (be it based on CQL, RPN, PQN or whatever) > then the client needs to parse this into the on-the-wire messages But you know and I know that in Real Life, that won't happen. Every single one of us, in our implementations (well maybe eveyone except Matthew :-) will have a way for people to type CQL straight in. We know it'll be that way, so why not make it easier for people to use? If we really do intend that users should never see CQL then really, let's go with one of the other approaches: XML Query, the Type-1 Query encoded in XML or some such. The whole point of CQL is its amenability to humans. _/|_ _______________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once" -- Ashleigh Brilliant.