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

RE: discovery of search arbiters, was: Comments on search-00 draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:29:49 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEPIEEAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:33 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: discovery of search arbiters, was: Comments on search-00
> draft
>
>
> > However, AFAIK in *current* implementations *each* WebDAV
> > research can act
> > as a SEARCH arbiter. In which case the discovery is trivial
> > (just look at
> > DAV:supported-search-grammar or DAV:supported-method-set).
>
> This is part of my point.  If in all current implementations, every WebDAV
> collection (resource?) can act as an arbiter, why not require that for
> basicsearch support?  Is there some prospective SEARCH implementation that
> couldn't handle that?

There could be some. Basically, you could have a search arbiter on server a
which allows generic DAV.basicsearch queries on remote WebDAV servers (which
only support standard PROPFIND).

What would be the benefit of requiring this?
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 15:30:24 GMT

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