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

RE: JW2a, JW2b: Search Arbiter resource

From: Kevin Wiggen <wiggs@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 19:20:34 -0700
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'DASL'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-id: <ONEOJMKKAIDAGPLOPJEDMEBACDAA.wiggs@xythos.com>

I definitely think that a new resource type should not be created.  On
Xythos, the ENTIRE Webdav server responds correctly to SEARCH methods.  I
don't want to have to respond in every request that the resource is a search
arbiter also (overkill and very wordy).

Thus I agree with Jim.

By the way, where is the issues list?  I will go through it also.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 1:53 PM
To: 'DASL'
Subject: RE: JW2a, JW2b: Search Arbiter resource


I'm returning to a post I made on August 16, 1999
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webdav-dasl/1999JulSep/0015.html>,
to see if we can start closing down some of the open issues in DASL.  The
crux of this issue is whether the DASL specification is defining a new type
of resource, the search arbiter.  After some discussion, Yaron and I agreed
that a search arbiter does not necessarily need to be DAV compliant, it just
needs to support the SEARCH method.

I recommended:

> A search arbiter is any resource that supports SEARCH.  A
> search arbiter is not a new resource type.
>
> In general, if a resource is a search arbiter, no conclusions
> can be made concerning what other methods it supports.

Yaron suggested, in his response, that a search arbiter could be a new
resource type, and that DAV resources could have multiple inheritance.  That
is, the DAV:resourcetype property could responde with DAV:searcharbiter, and
potentially some other value as well.  I tend to think that adding in
multiple inheritance is overkill for this situation, especially since there
is no strong need to report DAV:searcharbiter inside DAV:resourcetype (a
client can discover that the resource is a search arbiter by performing an
OPTIONS request).

So my recommendation still stands: a search arbiter should just be any
resource that supports SEARCH, and it is not a new resource type.

- Jim
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2000 22:26:28 GMT

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