On 1/17/07, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/1/17, Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not sure we understand each other here. I was referring to the simple
> search language from
http://wiki.freedesktop.org/wiki/WasabiDraft, and I
> meant that there should be a way for the user to express her wish for an
> exact match, with no transformation of the search term. The backend will
> then do its best. I don't see how the *language* feature could be
optional,
> not having it would unnecessarily cripple the capabilities of engines
which
> can switch stemming on or off. Maybe we could simply say that terms
> enclosed in double-quotes are not to be stemmed if possible ?
Ah, sorry. I was still thinking about the xml language, I see now that you
wrote *user-level* language :-)
Regarding the user-level language now. Perhaps "flying Dutchman" would mean
the unstemmed phrase (if supported), and 'flying Dutchman' (single quotes)
could allow for stemming. This is not completely standard, but it doesn't
break user expectation in horrible ways (as far as I can see).
I think it does. Double quotes usually express a phrase search.
My opinion is we'd better leave stemming (and diacritic sensitivity) out and let
each back-end play its specific strengths as it likes to find the best matches.
We have a tie :-) What do you other guys think? I see two arguments for the
xml language in both simple and live:
- Common api between live and simple interfaces
- Both apis can have the powers of both the user-level and the full xml
languages, while still having an easy way of doing direct user queries
without much parsing.
I don't mind either way.
Fabrice
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
