W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > October to December 1999

Notes from DASL breakout at IETF-46

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:28:59 -0800
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Message-ID: <NDBBIKLAGLCOPGKGADOJGEIMCIAA.ejw@ics.uci.edu>
DASL Breakout
Washington, DC IETF 46
Nov. 9, 1999

Present: Kevin Wiggen, Yaron Goland, Lisa Lippert, Judy Slein, Chris Kaler,
Jim Whitehead
Note taker: Jim Whitehead

A brief, 1 hour breakout session on DASL was held at the 46th IETF meeting
in Washington, DC, on Nov. 9, 1999.  These notes record the points of
discussion and consensus among the participants at the meeting.  Note that,
as with all IETF activities, the mailing list is the final arbiter of
consensus on all issues, and hence the points of consensus recorded in these
notes are subject to review on the mailing list.

Issue #1:

What to return if there are no matches -- empty multistatus is consensus.

Issue #2:

Dates (HTTPDate in getlastmodified). Agreement that it is OK to submit
isodate to search HTTPDate (i.e., it's a marshalling issue only).

Some discussion of how to handle searches where the search specifies a null
set (e.g., foo > 5 and foo < 5) -- right now, we just return the empty set.

Some discussion on how to marshall QSD responses, and how to marshall them.

Issue #3:

What should the default Depth value be for SEARCH?  Agreement that Depth
must be sent with SEARCH.

Issue #4:

When results are truncated, server replies with a 507 and also returns an
XML element.  Agreement that the XML element is redundant and can be
removed.

Issue #5:

507 is currently in conflict with other specs.  Need to avoid collisions.

Issue #6:

d:like does not allow for case insensitivity.  Why? Agreement: don't change.

Issue #7:

Searches on XML chunks that include namespaces.  Need to expand out the XML
namespace when doing the search (i.e., do search on DAV:foo, not X:foo
xmlns:X="DAV:")  Also an issue for expressing searches on XML sub-elements
of properties.

Issue #8:

Booleans appear to be underspecified in the specification.  How is a boolean
tested, and what are the behavior of operators like less than, greater than,
etc.


*** End of Breakout ***
Received on Monday, 15 November 1999 14:30:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:04 GMT