- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 13:37:58 -0800
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
It's true that DASL uses URIs to identify query grammars. What makes you say that XML-based query grammars need to be identified by a QName? Lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:14 PM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: DASL draft issue: identification of query grammars > > > Hi, > > see the message below for a DASL issue we discussed privately > before and for > which we'd like to see feedback from others. > > The issue is that the current (expired) DASL draft uses URIs to identify > query grammars, however XML-based query grammars need to be > identified by a > Qualified XML name (a pair of namespaceUri reference and local name). > > Julian > > > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jrd3@alum.mit.edu] > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 5:45 AM > > To: Julian Reschke; Lisa Dusseault > > Cc: mcc@watson.ibm.com; Jim Whitehead > > Subject: RE: DASL spec issue: encoding of a query grammar > > > > > > Julian last wrote about this issue in mid-September. If it has been > > solved, you can ignore this. If it's still alive, we should try > > to solve it. > > > > Maybe it will help if I try to explain what the DASL authors were > > trying to > > accomplish. if there is a better way to meet the same goal, > that's fine. > > > > The problem we need to solve it having a globally unique way to > name query > > grammars. our proposed solution is to use a URI as a name for > the grammar. > > So, e.g. we want to say "this query uses the query grammar > defined by the > > Library of Congress for complex boolean bibliographic queries" and "this > > server will accept queries in any of the following N grammars". Query > > terms have meaning only with respect to some grammar, > > > > now, is the way we proposed to do this in DASL sufficient for > this? Note > > that DASL does not need to combine the grammar URI and the query term > > string to make a longer URI, so I do not think any parsing is required. > > > > If there is a better way to meet the same goals, I for one, do > not object > > to using it. If so, please say what this is, or (so far as I am > > concerned) > > just change the spec to use it. > > In my eyes, the most elegant way would be just to copy the way > the supported > REPORTs are reported (see deltaV spec). Basically, there'd be a computed > live property named DAV:supported-search-grammar-set like: > > <supported-search-grammar-set xmlns="DAV:"> > <supported-search-grammar><basicsearch /></supported-search-grammar> > <supported-search-grammar><syntax1 > xmlns="http://foo.bar.com/"/></supported-search-grammar> > <supported-search-grammar><syntax2 > xmlns="http://akuma.com/"/></supported-search-grammar> > </supported-search-grammar-set> > > Advantages: > > - in line with other DAV standards > - solves discovery of grammar names properly > - doesn't require additional headers in OPTIONS > > Disadvantages: > > - will only work for servers that support PROPFIND > > Now, is the latter really still a problem? The DASL draft contains a few > hints that SEARCH requests with non-XML content should be > possible, yet it's > silent about how this should work. > > Julian
Received on Friday, 14 December 2001 16:40:30 UTC