[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] [Issue] XCQL: do we need it?
Here's the reason why we have it and why we'll want to keep it. If you have a better way to accomplish this, I'd be happy to hear it. The problem is that many of us use thin (browser-based) clients to our SRU servers. They have no ability to parse the query when it is returned to them. If we want to be able to use parts of the query in a display or allow the user to modify the query in any way, we need a parsed version of the query. Hence the XCQL in the echoedSearchRetrieveRequest element. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:farrukh@wellfleetsoftware.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:35 PM To: search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [search-ws] [Issue] XCQL: do we need it? The strawman spec refers to XCQL (btw citation is missing). XCQL sounds much Filter syntax within RegRep 3.0 and OGC Catalog specs. It provides an XML representation of the CQL syntax. Based on my experience such filter syntax has not been particularly useful as it is very verbose and complex. Also, it typically requires HTTP POST rather than the more desirable HTTP GET. I suggest we simplify the spec and drop any reference to XCQL. -- Regards, Farrukh Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]