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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:44:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4864E09E.8050508@gmx.de>
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

Hi,

I've finished those changes that were simple, please review 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest.html> 
  and 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest-from-previous.diff.html> 
for just the diffs.

Note that I have been encouraged to aim for "Proposed Standard", so 
Appendix B has been renamed and rephrased accordingly.

With respect to one of the points mentioned earlier...:

> 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?

My proposal is to make this a "SHOULD", and to mention the lack of scope 
discovery in the the "Future Extensions" appendix.

> ...

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 June 2008 12:44:57 GMT

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