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: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 19:24:04 +0000
To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Message-ID: <BAY2-F114wnzsLqIfQd0000421b@hotmail.com>

Yes.

prakash
>From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>To: "yamuna prakash" <yamunap@hotmail.com>, 
><julian.reschke@gmx.de>,<www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
>Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the draft
>Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:19:43 +0200
>
>
>OK,
>
>so do we have agreement for
>
>- allowing multiple scopes in DAV:basicsearch and
>- requiring servers that do not support multiple scopes to detect this and
>reject the request?
>
>Julian
>
>--
><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: yamuna prakash [mailto:yamunap@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 11:02 PM
> > To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the
> > draft
> >
> >
> > Agreed. I think it would be beneficial to make it optional rather than
> > preculde it totally.
> >
> > The other maybe goes into the nice to have list :)
> >
> > prakash
> >
> > >From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> > >To: "yamuna prakash" <yamunap@hotmail.com>,
> > ><julian.reschke@gmx.de>,<www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> > >Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on
> > the draft
> > >Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:24:45 +0200
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Three simple steps. They guarantee your safety.
> > http://server1.msn.co.in/features/general/SMBvirus/index.asp Protect
> > yourself against the SMB.EXE virus.
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Interact with peers. Learn from experts. 
http://server1.msn.co.in/sp03/teched/index.asp Be tech-empowered!
Received on Friday, 10 October 2003 15:24:05 GMT

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