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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:24:45 +0200
To: "yamuna prakash" <yamunap@hotmail.com>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOECFIMAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of yamuna prakash
> Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the
> draft
>
>
>
> From my perspective the behavior should be identical as to what
> is defined
> for single scope i.e. I believe all the other aspects of a search request
> (select, where, orderby, etc) should behave the way they have
> been defined
> for single scope.
>
> However I can see scenarios wherein it would definitely be useful if the
> user can specify the ability to group results by scope.
> ..

See,

this is exactly why we are so reluctant to add new things. Frequently, they
turn out to be not as simple as suggested.

So I'd propose either to make the minimal change I suggested (allowing
multiple scopes (optional), and defining a condition code for servers that
don't support that), or not to put it into DAV:basicsearch.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 07:24:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:09 GMT