> > Yeuch. I've always thought of prefixes as the least
> > important part of CQL, only there as a (valuable)
> > afterthought to reduce the dependance on Explain.
> I'll second that! I'd be happy if it went away.
> Since the parser writers are the ones that want it, I guess I can't
> complain. I'm hoping that all that baloney is invisible to me and the
> prefix will be replaced with the equivalent URI as part of the index name
> when I walk the parsed tree.
Having spent the 2 minutes required to fix my parser to Taylorian
semantics, all the parser writers are now in accord on the prefixes
precedence subject. :)
On the prefix name in tree, it seems that we should also make that able to
be expressed in XCQL directly. Was there a reason that we didn't do this
from the start?
Rob
So XCQL v1.1 might look something like:
<searchClause>
<prefixes> [prefix list]
<index>
<context>
<name>
</index>
<relation>
<context>
<name>
<modifiers> [modifer list]
</relation>
<term>
(anything)
</term>
</searchClause>
--
,'/:. Dr Robert Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
,'-/::::. http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
,'--/::(@)::. Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::. Nebmedes: telnet: nebmedes.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::. WWW: http://nebmedes.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
