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

Re: getting WebDAV SEARCH ready for the IESG

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:23:40 +0200
Message-ID: <48972D0C.3070808@gmx.de>
To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

John Barone wrote:
>> However, it seems to me that the text in 2.3.1 was phrased this way on
> purpose
>> -- there may be cases where it's not possible to first sort, 
>> then truncate. For instance, when searching can be delegated to an
> underlying 
>> SQL store, but ordering can not, how would you implement that? 
>> Thus, I'm hesitant doing any change over here.
> 
> Completely understood.  I'm just saying a client may not want results
> that aren't ordered over the entire result set.  It might be preferred
> to get no results (and have to further refine the search) than to get
> truncated results that aren't "globaly" ordered.

I do agree that this may be more useful. I'm just skeptic about making 
this change many years after people have written implementations.

>> If you feel strongly about that, we *could* add a statement into the
> "future extensions" appendix.
> 
> I don't feel that strongly about this, just a nice-to-have for some
> clients.
> 
> 
>> And yes, the inconsistency with 5.17.1 is a bit awkward, but I'm
> really not
>> sure we can change this at this point of time.
> 
> This I think is a bigger deal.  If you acknowledge that some servers
> cannot (at least easily) order a global result set and then limit the
> results returned, then how can this be a MUST?  Seems like the same
> issue to me.

I just checked the document's history, and that particular requirement 
was added in 2003, see the thread around 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webdav-dasl/2002OctDec/0033.html>. 
Back then we probably did not realize that we're introducing an 
inconsistency between truncation (server enforced) and limiting (on 
behalf of the client).

If this is a minor problem, we should just state it somewhere. If it's a 
major problem, we could try to fix it. The server I worked on didn't 
truncate, so I don't have a strong preference. That being said, it would 
be interesting to know how the other servers (Xythos, Catacomb, 
Slide...?) behave...

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 16:24:25 GMT

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