W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the draft

From: yamuna prakash <yamunap@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:44:31 +0000
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY2-F193PKyjHB7ThI0000b91e@hotmail.com>

Thanks Julian.

Your responses were very helpful. I would be curious to know what other 
issues you forsee with multiple scopes.

I had one final question on this issue. From what I have heard so far, it 
seems like URIs of different schemes (basically ftp, http, etc) are issues. 
In which case I am wondering if there is any issue if all the URIs are of a 
particular scheme lets say http?

i.e would there be issues if the SEARCH arbiter was asked to search in the 
scope of http://www.cnn.com and http://news.bbc.co.uk ?

In one of your mails you mentioned that I should make a proposal for section 
5.4. I was hoping you could provide me some pointers on how I go about doing 


>From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>To: "yamuna prakash" <yamunap@hotmail.com>, 
>Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the draft
>Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 11:00:52 +0200
> > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of yamuna prakash
> > Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 10:48 AM
> > To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the
> > draft
> >
> >
> >
> > Indeed I was mixing issues because my pitch was basically, if basic 
> > required that the server be able to handle different property schemas in 
> > single scope then the issues that crop up with multiple scopes would be
> > same.
>Well, I'd say there'll be more issues.
> > From your mail I gather that this may not be the case.
> >
> > One of the issues you mention with multiple scopes is the fact that the
> > persistence layers maybe different. However if I wonder how this would 
> > different from a scenario wherein I had a symbolic link to a resource in 
> > different persistence layer. I am assuming this is possible.
>This is possible. The closest thing to a symbolic link in HTTP/WebDAV is a
>"redirect reference resource" (the spec for which still is in draft state).
>The SEARCH spec probably should say something about how it applies to
>redirect refs, and the likely default will *not* to follow them
> > I am not sure I follow your comment on the ability to specify any URI as
> > scope but I am speculating that what you had in mind is that since we 
> > specify any URI in the scope,  if multiple scopes are supported then 
> > scopes may refer to different persistence layers and thus the issues you
> > mention that crop up with the server having to talk to multiple
> > persistence layers.
><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Three simple steps. They guarantee your safety. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/features/general/SMBvirus/index.asp Protect 
yourself against the SMB.EXE virus.
Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 05:44:32 UTC

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