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

RE: Proposed resolution for issue "score-pseudo-property"

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:17:43 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c298a5$2ffeaac0$620afea9@xythoslap>

That sounds like the right thing to do.  Ordering by lowest score first
seems such a low-priority feature that if somebody turns out to need it
someday they can add an extension for that.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:41 AM
> To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed resolution for issue "score-pseudo-property"
> Elias Anderson wrote:
> > I agree that the spec should mention something about the intended
> > interaction between DAV:nresults and DAV:score. The most
> > approach would be to state that the server MUST follow the expected
> > behavior. As much as I'd like to move the sorting cycles from the
> > to the client, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to do this
> > still allowing truncated result sets. The fact that a server may
> > truncate the result set of a SEARCH, without the client explicitly
> > asking it to do so, leads me to believe that sorting is an
> > server-side activity.
> Thinking about it, the relationship *really* is between DAV:nresults
> the
> presence of DAV:score -- not the fact that the client requests
ordering by
> DAV:score. Is there a use case for combining DAV:nresults with
ordering by
> DAV:score in *ascending* order (lowest scores first)?
> If not, we can just point out that combining any operator that
> scores (right now thats DAV:contains) with DAV:results should cause
> server to return the "n" top scoring results.
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 14:18:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:43 UTC