> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 13:58:32 +0000 > From: Ashley Sanders <[log in to unmask]> > >>>> ignoreCase >>>> respectCase >> >> Surely one of these is unnecessary ?. > > If so, then one of: > > ascendingOrder > descendingOrder > > would also be unnecessary. Actually I think we need all > four so the user/programmer can be explicit in her intentions > and need not rely on a default that a server may or may not > have implemented. Precisely. Based on your suggestion, Ashley, and on subsequent Editorial Board discussion, we've revised the index-modifiers listed in the sorting proposal at http://zing.z3950.org/cql/sorting.html#6 as follows: caseInsensitive caseSensitive ascending descending missingOmit missingFail missingLowest missingHighest missingValue=value As you'll see, we ended up plumping for explicitness over brevity -- not my own favourite approach, but the closest thing to a consensus. _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________ /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk )_v__/\ Women ... They're less trouble than they're worth.