On 1/3/07, Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That is _much_ better than the current system. It wouldn't be hard to add start/end offsets to the fragments too, as Chris suggested so long ago.
Or leave room for other info such as weights, or what term matched, etc.
Quite a few aspects of the result format appear to be problematic from a direct-XSLT-consumption perspective... which probably isn't too surprising as I don't think that was really the original intent.
Yeah, I certainly didn't envision direct XSLT processing as it's certainly not a CNET usecase, and there are security issues with directly hitting a Solr index. -Yonik
