[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [search-ws] CQL discussion on SRU list
|
For a couple reasons. 1. The bnf to do it was so tortured. Do we want a standard with
bad bnf? remember, title = (cat or dog) … cat or dog is a boolean
expression, so you have to have index = boolean expression. As I recall we had
to insert something terribly convoluted into the bnf just to do that, but I can't
remember what it was and I don't want to enter the main discussion until I can
reconstruct it, and godamit, I don't have time for this right now, we've
already done this at least four times. This is a godam waste of time. 2. title = (cat or dog) is completely equivalent to title =
cat or title = dog, which is a sane and easy way to express it, so why do we
need these ridiculous histrionics. --Ray From: LeVan,Ralph
[mailto:levan@oclc.org] I’m not saying that it is supported in any of our blessed
BNFs. I’m saying that the evidence is clear that Mike has successfully
mangled the BNF to make it support this feature without harming the BNF or the
other features. Given that evidence, why would we not consider it? Ralph From: Ray Denenberg,
Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] Ralph - just so I am clear about what you are saying (before I
jump into this)…. this is not supported by the OASIS BNF. Are you saying
it is supported by the 1.2 BNF? The 1.1 BNF? --Ray From: LeVan,Ralph
[mailto:levan@oclc.org] Not me. It can clearly be coded into the grammar without
obvious detriment as I’ve been using Mike’s parser from the beginning. Ralph From: Ray Denenberg,
Library of Congress [mailto:rden@loc.gov] Our friend Mike Taylor once again has stirred up
the old title=(cat or dog) issue. It's really getting tiresome. I already
have high blood pressure. Can one of you respond, rationally, without further
health risk. I can't. --Ray |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]