Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> 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. Yes, that is exactly the use case. Back in the day it was Alta-Vista, not Google, but that was precisely the idea. >> 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? Yes, "SHOULD" makes sense. "MUST" would not be right, of course, but I agree that clients will make that assumption, so it ought to be encoded into the specification. > 1) Supported Scope > (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-15.html#rfc.section.5.4.2>) > > > My proposal is to make this a "SHOULD", and to mention the lack of > scope discovery in the the "Future Extensions" appendix. And I look forward to reading of progress in addressing this gap. -- Jim Davis http://www.econetwork.net/~jdavis jrd3@alum.mit.edu 416-929-5854Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 18:23:03 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:10 GMT