Re: Holding connections open; syntax ambiguity?

Mark Prior <mrp@itd.adelaide.edu.au> Thu, 08 April 1993 09:08 UTC

Sender: ietf-wnils-request@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Message-Id: <9304080805.AA07380@jarrah.itd.adelaide.edu.au>
To: dank@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov
Cc: Peter Deutsch <peterd@bunyip.com>, ietf-wnils@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu
Subject: Re: Holding connections open; syntax ambiguity?
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 08 Apr 1993 00:30:19 MDT." <9304080730.AA08428@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1993 17:35:29 +0930
From: Mark Prior <mrp@itd.adelaide.edu.au>

     I've looked around, but haven't seen a complete list of the proposed
     required constraints.  I imagine a query like
         john doe, HOLD, FUZZY, MAXHITS=2
     would be about right for incremental search.

     Come to think of it, it seems that comma is a bad choice to set off options,
     since it is used to set off first names (according to an early document on
     the servers).  How does one handle people whose first names
     are equal to keywords?  One of my friends is called Fuzzy; would
         smith, fuzzy, FUZZY
     find her?  Perhaps slashes are less ambiguous:
         smith, fuzzy /FUZZY
     or does that remind people too much of VMS?

Well fuzzy is a type of matching so you would at least have to use the
query

        smith, fuzzy, match=fuzzy

Obvious this still has problems and maybe "/" is the "right" solution,
unless you say something like

        "smith, fuzzy", match=fuzzy

I have to take this approach when you specify handles since my handles
(based on X.500 distinguished names) have commas in them.

Mark.

Re: Holding connections open & incremental search… Peter Deutsch
Re: Holding connections open; syntax ambiguity? Mark Prior
Re: Holding connections open; syntax ambiguity? dank