W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: REPORT vs SEARCH

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:55:58 +0200
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ACL@webdav.org>, "WebDAV Working Group" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEPEDCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
(sorry: wrong attachment)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 5:46 PM
> To: ACL@webdav.org; WebDAV Working Group
> Subject: REPORT vs SEARCH
>
>
> Hi,
>
> due to the recent discussion on the ACL list, I have done a comparison of
> PROPFIND, (ACL/deltaV) REPORT and (DASL) SEARCH. My conclusions are:
>
> - There are three methods with partly overlapping features: PROPFIND
> (defined in RFC2518), REPORT (defined in the soon-to-appear
> deltaV RFC) and
> SEARCH (expired draft).
> REPORT and SEARCH seem to be almost identical in features -- both just
> define frameworks into which query/report grammars can be plugged in.
> - There doesn't seem to be anything in the DASL framework that couldn't be
> done with REPORT. In fact, query grammar (REPORT) discovery seems
> to have a
> more elegant solution.
>
> Proposal: drop work on DASL. Instead define an (extensible) equivalent of
> DAV:basicseach, with the following additional features:
>
> - discovery of searchable properties
> - discovery of supported constructs in the grammar
> - better signaling of execution errors (non-searchable properties, not
> recognized grammar constructs)
> - definition of a mandatory subset of query grammar features
>
> Publish this as separate RFC, or possibly move it into RFC2518++.
>
> (the actual tabular comparison is attached as HTML).
>
> Julian
>


Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:55:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:58 GMT