> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:26:23 -0500 > From: Sebastian Hammer <[log in to unmask]> > >> But to summarise the relationship between CCL and CQL: the >> intention when CQL was being design (initially by Ralph, and >> subsequently by the SRW editorial board as a whole) was that it >> should be pretty much a superset of CCL, and that it therefore sets >> out to provide _additional_ syntax rather than _alternative_ >> syntax. So what you would hope to find is that most CCL queries >> are also CQL queries with the same interpretation, but that you go >> on to say much more in CQL. > > AFAIK, one of the crucial differences (unless this was changed in > CQL?) is that the CCL spec doesn't require quotes around multi-word > terms... this makes the grammar and parsing of CCL queries somewhat > more challenging. Hmm, I thought that was one of Adam's private enhancements. Darn! If only the standard were actually _available_, we could check! :-) (And, by the way, the absence of that facility in CQL is a mistake.) _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ "An intellectual is a man who says a simple thing in a difficult way; an artist is a man who says a difficult thing in a simple way" -- Charles Bukowski.