cql-form issues checklist

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

Following is my summary of the state of resolution of the cql-forms issues. Please address these point by point.  And note if there are issues I haven't covered. 

1.  There will be a queryType for cql-form (see point 2 regarding the name). There also should be prose within the SRU spec that for certain queryTypes, there will be no query parameter (and thus the query parameter becomes optional), and instead, the query will be expressed as parameters within the SRU request, and the parameter names will be defined by the specification for that queryType.

2. The queryType name for this "thing" we are talking about could be: cql-form, or cql-p (for "cql parameterized") or any of a number of things.
Let's call it cql-form for now because that's what we have been calling it - that may not be the best name -  we can decide later what the real name will be.  I think cql-p would be fine.  I don't have a strong opinion. 
So, in all that follows substitute whatever new name we come up with for cql-form. 

4. When queryType=cql-form then there is no query parameter and there will be parameters in the SRU request as defined by the cql-form spec. 

3. One of which will be a queryN parameter (defined by the cql-form query spec -that is, not defined by SRU).  Its value is a positive integer which is greater or equal to the number of search clauses. It is not overloaded with any other meaning. 

4.  There do not need to be different query types for preceding and following boolean style clauses, as discussed yesterday. Are we agreed on that point?

5.  The naming convention for the parameters are still to be decided.

6. I propose that the cql-form spec be a normative annex of the cql spec. 

Anything else?

--Ray