W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > May 2002

Re: CCL proposal (quotes)

From: Mark Reichert <markr@sirs.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:43:57 -0400
Message-ID: <0e5b01c1f5d5$9e15ea00$c8aca2cd@MANPROMARKR>
To: "Z39.50 LISTSERV" <www-zig@w3.org>
Now that Z39.58 is no longer, there's no one to complain to.  You can do
whatever you like if you have no need to support what Z39.58 was.


----- Original Message -----

> Okay, I'll just come right out and say it.  I hate the idea of
double-quotes
> inside of strings!  I'm sure I'm just being old fashioned, but it feels
like
> a parsing nightmare.  Whatever happened to the good old backslash to
escape
> things?  I have no problems with a proposal that 123?4\56 means that the
> five is a literal and not a digit and should be ignored by the
question-mark
> processor.  But I don't like 123?4"5"6.
>
> Sorry.
>
> Ralph
>
> "No sir, I don't like it!"
> The Horse from Ren and Stimpy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Reichert [mailto:markr@sirs.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:56 AM
> > To: Z39.50 LISTSERV
> > Subject: Re: CCL proposal (quotes)
> >
> >
> > I knew I had it around somewhere.  Z39.58-1992 is/was clear
> > on this matter.
> >
> > 7.7.2.1
> >
> > ...
> > When ? is immediately followed by a positive integer, it
> > shall be used to
> > indicate a limited range of characters to be masked, from
> > zero up to and
> > including the specified integer....  To search embedded
> > numbers, restoration
> > marks are required.  See Section 7.7.7.
> >
> > 7.7.7
> >
> > In order to use a reserved command word, abbreviation,
> > symbol, or operator
> > as a search word, double quotation marks, " ", shall be used
> > to restore its
> > literal meaning....
> >
> > FIND 0?10"5" // ten zeroes followed by a five (my example)
> > FIND C?"14" // word beginning with C, ending in 14 (from
> > Z39.58 appendix)
> >
> > # has no interaction with digits:  Multiple #s shall be used
> > to indicate
> > that a precise number of characters greater than one and qual
> > to the number
> > of # symbols are to be masked (7.7.2.2).
> >
> > The standard never offered an explicit explanation/example of
> > restoring ",
> > but presumably by 7.7.2.1...
> >
> > FIND """Some text in quotes"""
> >
> > There is no mention of the more typical "" escaping.
> >
> > The portion of a <search_term> that corresponds to restoration is:
> >
> > {<restoration><word>[<space><word>]...<restoration>}
> >
> > <restoration> ::= [<space>}<">[<space>]
> > <space> ::= < >[< >}...
> > <word> ::= {<char>|<var_mask>|<exact_mask>}...
> > <var_mask> ::= <?>[<positive_integer>]
> > <exact_mask> ::= <#>[<#>]...
> > <char> ::= <any_searchable_char>
> > <any_searchable_char> ::= any character locally defined as searchable
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > > Not making it to the ZIG, someone sent me some private mail
> > indicating
> > > that Ralph's proposed single digit after '?' change got accepted
> > > and possibly no-one mentioned my counter double quotes suggestion.
> > > Fair enough, if you don't turn up you have less influence.
> > >
> > > Just thought I would have a last bash at a compromise with the idea
> > > that if the CCL regexp is changing, may as well try and get as many
> > > changes in as possible in one hit rather than change it again later.
> > >
> > > To repeat the problem I currently have with the CCL regexp is that
> > > you cannot specify '?' or '#' as literal text (ie, release their
> > > special meaning). So even if there is now allowed only to be a
> > > single digit after '?', while the spec is being changed is it worth
> > > allowing double quotes ('"') to be used to release special chars
> > > anyway? This would allow 'find all terms starting with "#"'.
> > > At present, you cannot do this with the CCL regexp. Normally
> > > regexp's have release mechanism ( \ for regexp-1 I believe).
> > > CCL uses " as a release mechanism so seemed the natural thing
> > > to use in the CCL regexp (rather than \ which in CCL has no
> > > special meaning).
> > >
> > > It seems an oversight not to allow searching for serial numbers etc
> > > using patterns.
> > >
> > >     #41434
> > >     #53423
> > >
> > > If people have to change their CCL regexp implementation anyway,
> > > I would rather do both changes at the same time and make it possible
> > > to search for all possible characters.
> > >
> > > I wonder also if the Z39.58/CCL regexp attribute needs to be renamed
> > > to indicate that it no longer conforms to CCL. I don't actually have
> > > a copy of Z39.58, but if its anything like the ISO version of CCL
> > > the spec is so woolly that it isn't funny! The formal grammar is
> > > given by examples only, and the examples contradict themselves
> > > in places! (Mind you, the copy I have of ISO8777 is pretty old now
> > > so maybe its been improved.) Not stressed, just thought it was the
> > > correct time to at least ask the question.
> > >
> > > Alan
> > > --
> > > Alan Kent (mailto:ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au,
> > http://www.mds.rmit.edu.au/~ajk/)
> > > Project: TeraText Technical Director, InQuirion Pty Ltd
> > (www.inquirion.com)
> > > Postal: Multimedia Database Systems, RMIT, GPO Box 2476V,
> > Melbourne 3001.
> > > Where: RMIT MDS, Bld 91, Level 3, 110 Victoria St, Carlton 3053, VIC
> > Australia.
> > > Phone: +61 3 9925 4114  Reception: +61 3 9925 4099  Fax:
> > +61 3 9925 4098
> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 10:44:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:22 GMT