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

Re: next steps / open issues in DASL framework

From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:44:56 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
At 10:41 AM 3/7/2002 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>we still have three open issues in the DASL framework (= complete spec minus
>DAV:basicsearch minus Query Schema Discovery). I'd like to close these, and
>then to submit a version "00" of the draft.

Good plan.

>The open issues are:
>ejw@ics.uci.edu 1999-04-26 This specification essentially defines a new type
>of Web resource, of type "search arbiter". ....
>JR: I think there is an agreement that the SEARCH arbiter isn't a special
>resource type (except for it's ability to respond to search messages). Do we
>have agreement on this? Does the spec need to be clarified somewhere?

Martin Wallmer said it well "'search arbiter' is an abstract term for a
piece of software".  It has no resource type.  But note that there is no 
requirement that the search arbiter be full WebDAV server.  Think of 
Google, imagine it implements DASL.

The spec should probably clarity this.

>The second one:
>ejw@ics.uci.edu 1999-04-26 How does a DAV client discover which search
>arbiter can be used to search a portion of the DAV namespace?...
>--> I currently can't think of an easy method for the general case (in which
>a resource doesn't have any knowledge about the SEARCH arbiter resources
>that could search it). So, I'd say it's out of scope. Should the spec say
>anything about this problem?

It should say it's out of scope.  Again, the situation is much like Google.

>The last one:
>ejw@ics.uci.edu 1999-04-26 On the topic of partial search results, DASL
>currently has no way for a client to request the next chunk of a set of
>search results. ...
>--> My position is "out-of-scope", because nobody seems to have asked for
>this feature since it was raised. But I'm also willing to propose an
>extension to DAV:basicsearch that would allow it. Feedback?

It is not easy to define, so we left it out.
you can not make it mandatory, since some servers are not willing to store 
results  even for a few minutes.
Received on Friday, 8 March 2002 14:41:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:42 UTC