W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > April to June 2008

Area Director feedback on draft-reschke-webdav-search-15

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:42:25 +0200
Message-ID: <48623D31.8030904@gmx.de>
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

Hi,

I got initial IESG feedback on draft-reschke-webdav-search-15, which had 
been sitting in state "publication requested" for some time.

A bunch of editorial issues have already been fixed, see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest.html> 
for the latest and greatest.

There are two outstanding issues concerning what clients can really 
expect from a compliant server, though...:

1) Supported Scope 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-15.html#rfc.section.5.4.2>)

As far as I understand, the original authors wanted to allow cases where 
a certain search arbiter could provide search functionality for a 
distinct set of resources. Think http://google.com implementing SEARCH. 
We all know that this hasn't been implemented in practice, but the 
specification still allows it.

This means that clients can discover pro grammatically that a resource 
supports SEARCH, and what grammars it supports, but not the scopes that 
can be specified.

Now DAV:basicsearch is really designed for WebDAV resources. I assume 
that all non-interactive clients assume that a search arbiter supporting 
DAV:basicsearch really is capable of searching the URL namespace below 
itself. Is this a sane assumption? Can we make that a SHOULD?


2) Supported query complexity

The security considerations allow a server to reject queries due to 
their complexity 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-15.html#rfc.section.7>). 
Is there any kind of minimum we can require servers to support?


BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 12:49:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:10 GMT