W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > October to December 2001

RE: DASL draft issue: identification of query grammars

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 10:49:58 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEHNDKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2001 1:14 AM
> To: Julian Reschke; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: DASL draft issue: identification of query grammars
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:56 PM
> > To: Lisa Dusseault; Julian Reschke; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: DASL draft issue: identification of query grammars
> >
> > Or do you propose to keep a hardwired mapping for each query
> grammar your
> > software knows about?
>
> Yes.
>
> Knowing a query grammar, in the sense of being aware of it only,
> is useless.
> You can't go look it up somewhere and then do it, without having the code.
>
> Knowing a query grammer in the sense of supporting it in your software,
> requires coding.
>
> As long as you have the coding to support the query grammar, you have to
> know the name of the grammar too.  The name is just a string,
> really -- the
> only reason to call it a URI or a namespace is to have some character
> restrictions and formation conventions.

1) But why choose a format that requires out-of-band information (which URI
is for which grammar), if it would be possible to marshall the required
information in the first place? Why invent a format like this, if the
similar REPORT method already shows a better solution? Why require a client
to do an OPTIONS call, if deltaV/ACL already supply this kind of information
as live properties? I'd prefer the protocol to be consistent with other
WebDAV extensions (no, this wouldn't mean that PROPFIND is required for
DASL -- it just means that if PROPFIND exists, it would offer these live
properties).

2) If we want to stick with the current method, the draft must be rewritten
to define it properly. Right now it only shows examples where the namespace
URI and the local name have been concatenated to form a URI. This only works
for a subset of namespace URIs.

Julian
Received on Saturday, 15 December 2001 04:50:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:07 GMT