Re: [search-ws] multiple query types

["Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>]

But wouldn't (4) give the same backwards compatibility?

And (as I think Ralph pointed out last time we discussed this) it would make
the protocol seem less cql-oriented.

And pardon my typo, I said:
"(4) Use (4) except there is no standard default, the default is sever
dependent and exposed via explain."
when obviously I meant:
"(4) Use (3) ......"

--Ray


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr R. Sanderson" <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
Cc: <search-ws@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:14 PM
Subject: Re: [search-ws] multiple query types


> > (3) Use (1) with the additional stipulation that queryType is optional,
and
> > it defaults to CQL.
>
> 3 please, backwards compatability is important.
>
> R
>