W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > April to June 2000

RE: drop QSD?

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:51:41 -0400
Message-ID: <8E3CFBC709A8D21191A400805F15E0DB0211FA02@crte147.wc.eso.mc.xerox.com>
To: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
One possibility might be to drop QSD and assume that clients will just try
things that seem reasonable given the grammar, but provide some 4xx status
codes that would help clients figure out what was wrong with a query that
failed (property not searchable, property not selectable, property not
sortable, etc.).

I don't know how important discovery of extension operators is.  Unless the
client knows what they mean, it won't be able to use them anyway.

--Judy

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Wiggen [mailto:wiggs@xythos.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 5:22 PM
To: Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: RE: drop QSD?



The Xythos Storage Server has not implemented it as of yet, although we do
the rest of DASL :)   If it remained in the spec, I am sure we would get
around to it.  I agree with Jim that it should be removed.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 1:56 PM
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: drop QSD?


I would like to propose that we drop Query Schema Discovery.  I do this
with great reluctance, in part because I put so much effort into the
design, but to be honest I do not believe anyone will ever implement it,
and it is complex.

Does anyone object to this?  If you do so object, please state whether you
either HAVE implemented it, or have a firm commitment to do so, and whether
in a server or client.

I suppose I would be willing to be told that this feature should remain in
the spec, even though no one implemented it, but I would then also like to
have someone explain how we will get DASL to ever be accepted by the IETF
if there is no implementation of this portion of the protocol.
Received on Monday, 17 April 2000 17:51:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:05 GMT