W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: QSD

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:19:43 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEIADOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 12:11 AM
> To: Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: QSD
>
>
> I don't have time this week to read the draft.  It may well meet
> the need I

(note: all non-editorial changes are highlighted)

> articulated.  However, is anybody besides me disturbed by the
> fact that this
> property which refers to all properties is indistinguishable from a
> property?  That seems error prone to me.

If this would be the case, it would certainly be bad design. The DTD says:

<!ELEMENT basicsearchschema  (properties, operators)>

<!ELEMENT any-other-property EMPTY>
<!ELEMENT properties         (propdesc*)>
<!ELEMENT propdesc           (prop|any-other-property), datatype?,
searchable?, selectable?, sortable?, casesensitive?)>
<!ELEMENT operators          (opdesc*)>
<!ELEMENT opdesc             ANY>
<!ELEMENT operand-literal    EMPTY>
<!ELEMENT operand-property   EMPTY>

So the intention is to have either

	<prop><some-named-property/></prop>

or

	<any-other-property/>

however

	<prop><any-other-property/></prop>

would mean exactly that: a propery called "{DAV:}any-other-property" (which
doesn't exist).

I'd like to add that I'm strongly opposed to add/keep any "pseudo"
properties. That's why I removed "{DAV:}iscollection" (and replaced it by
the operator "{DAV:}is-collection", and I'd like to do something similar to
the query schema pseudo property.

> HTTP/DAV has other instances of needing to refer to "any" instead of a
> specific thing, and * is more typically used for that.  For example, in
> 	OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
> the * refers to the server as a whole and not any resource in particular.
> Should we use * instead of something which looks like a valid prop name?

We could, but that would make the DTD content model for propdesc harder (it
would become a mixed content model).
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 03:20:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:08 GMT