Re: CCL proposal (quotes)

Leaving aside the technical issue Alan raises, I don't think we thought this
through very carefully. The type-104 truncation attribute is named "Z39.58".We
shouldn't be making changes to it;  it's supposed to reflect Z39.58 rules. And we
shouldn't be bothering with it anyway since Z39.58 has been withdrawn.

I think we should leave 104 alone and define a type 105 that resolves both Ralph's
and Alan's concerns.

Clearly not very many people care about this (perhaps only two) or we wouldn't have
approved it, but still, I would like comments on this idea.

--Ray


Alan Kent wrote:

> 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 Monday, 6 May 2002 14:30:39 UTC