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: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:48:54 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
At 09:33 AM 3/29/2002 -0800, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > 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?

Did you really mean "require"?  I would strongly object to that.

I would object (but only mildly) to making it a SHOULD.

basicsearch is supposed to be basic.  Every feature you add increases its 
cost. Not just the cost to implement, but also the human costs of 
understanding it, accepting it, and the cost to come to agreement about it.

What we need to do is finish this spec and get it implemented, hopefully by 
many people.
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 17:22:04 UTC

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