Date:         Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:07:40 -0400
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ray Denenberg <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Library Of Congress
Subject:      Re: Betr.: Re: result set model for srw
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Mike Taylor wrote:

> statement then bow out.  CQL was _always_ designed to be
> human-comprehensible (ain't it so, Ralph?)  Why do that if not so that
> humans can read it and write it.

"read it" and "write it" are two different things. It was always a premise
that humans can read it. That's a premise of XML too, which  is not intended
to be human-writeable.  I think when we discussed cql
human-comprehensibility, we neglected to draw this distinction, so I would
say (at this stage), there hasn't been a premise of human-writeability.

--Ray