From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
> ... with the exception of this brain-damage: "It was the consensus of
> the meeting that there should be a parameter (in SRU version 2.0) to
> specify the requested response schema: SRU, RSS, ATOM, ext."
> But luckily for everyone who agreed with this idea at the meeting, I
> am too tired to fight it.

As this is an issue that need not be resoved any time soon (it would be
considered within the OASIS work, for SRU 2.0) nobody is suggesting that you
not advocate your position, but we (the meeting participants) feel that you
haven't articulated any argument - "a tool should do one thing and do it
well" (or however you put it) seems at best a non sequitur. We're hoping you
will join the TC and that you'll be willing to share your insight on this
when it comes up.

>> Pairing
> > a modifier from one set with a value from another is not a good
> > practice.
> It's not just "not good practice", it's impossible.

It's not impossible unless the spec says it's impossible.  I'd be happy to
add explicit  prose to this effect but right now the spec does not preclude
this behavior.  People were trying to craft prox modifiers in different
context sets (i.e. other than CQL) that reference the units defined in cql -
word, sentence, etc. which would have meant overloading those values. Hence
the solution we came up with, but it can only be regarded as "good practice"
at this point.