[LibX] Re: Multiple options (indexes) for type=bookmarklet

Godmar Back godmar at gmail.com
Mon Aug 21 14:03:18 EDT 2006


Limiting the number of search fields is an entirely different issue
which we haven't addressed. It applies also to the supported catalogs
in some cases, btw.

I don't think that %ITERATE would provide more expressiveness; it
appears to be syntactic sugar only. Otherwise, give an example.

 - Godmar

On 8/21/06, Richard Karnesky <karnesky at northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Thanks.  I've tried it out.
>
> My only complaint is that compound searches (with multiple terms (where,
> for example, type1=author,type2=title,type 3=keywords)) are difficult to
> formulate (if they are possible at all).  This might be an edge case &
> not worth changing at this point (the ability to easily formulate a one
> term search through any type is already very useful).
>
> If it is changed, I don't know of many webapps in which the ordering of
> the terms matter.  It might be useful to allow some kind of iterator
> syntax so that you can use something like:
>   %ITERATE{{%SWITCH{%type}{t:KT}{d:KS}{sot:TV}{soi:IV}=%term},&}
> which could then support an arbitrary number of fields.
>
> If a limited number of fields is kept for the bookmarklet is kept,
> perhaps the end user interface to the search could be a bit cleaner?
> That is, even for a catalog which supports only %type1 and %term1, the
> search still allows an arbitrary number of additional search boxes.  It
> would be nice if it only allowed one.  (I realize this might be somewhat
> tricky because of the feature to keep the same search between different
> catalogs.)
>
> This improved bookmarklet is quite useful.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --Rick
>
>
>
>


More information about the Libx mailing list