- From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:48:54 -0800
- 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