Re: QUERY Verb Proposal

Hi James:
First some questions:
What is the status of WebDAV Search?
Is it a standard.  Is it widely used?

Also, I don't like the 207 return format.
Introduces unnecessary complications.

You said ...

"For the updated definition of SEARCH, we'd simply say that multiple
payload types are permitted and that the method is no longer specific
to WebDAV."

Yes, that's fine.  I'm open to a rev of WebDAV Search for HTTP.

My original proposal included client-side paging.  Based on some
feedback, I removed that for simplification.  What do you think?

All the best, AshokOn 1/19/2015 11:18 AM, James M Snell wrote:
> I've been kicking around an updated definition for the SEARCH method.
> I'm not convinced that a new QUERY method is actually required.
>
> For the updated definition of SEARCH, we'd simply say that multiple
> payload types are permitted and that the method is no longer specific
> to WebDAV.
>
> SEARCH /r HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.org
> Content-Type: application/sparql
>
> {a sparql query}
>
>
> SEARCH /r/abc123 HTTP/1.1
> Host: example.org
> Accept: application/ld+json
> Content-Type: application/ld-frame+json
>
> {...}
>
> The payload describes the search input. The method is safe but not
> necessarily idempotent since the results can obviously vary depending
> on current server state.
>
> I'm curious, why would a new QUERY method be required?
>
> - James
>
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Ashok Malhotra
> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>> I'm attaching a ppt and a brief writeup.
>> I'm happy to create a more formal writeup
>> along the lines of the WebDAV SEARCH proposal
>> of the PATCH Verb Proposal.
>>
>> Anyone want to get involved and help?
>> --
>> All the best, Ashok