W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Sort criteria in Search Request

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:05:36 +0100 (BST)
To: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
cc: ZIG <www-zig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109161159110.30616-100000@gondolin.hist.liv.ac.uk>

> My point is to illustrate how easy this is (even though you have to
> support encapsulation). Or let me put it this way: a number of people
> said "encapsulation is too hard, let's just come up with an agreement
> to put a sort pdu in otherInfo". That's all the proposal does
> basically, is put a sort pdu in Otherinfo (and set an option bit).

Could someone please explain the actual point of doing this as opposed to
just sending multiple requests as per the status quo?

Eg why do:

1. init
2. search+sort
3. present

rather than:

1. init
2. search
3. sort     (after you know that the search has actually -succeeded-)
4. present

It seems that then the next logical step in the progression is:
1. init+search+sort+present (ala HTTP etcetc.)

Thanks,

Rob

-- 
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson (azaroth@liverpool.ac.uk)
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Syrinnia:  telnet:  syrinnia.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.                WWW:  http://syrinnia.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I
Received on Sunday, 16 September 2001 07:09:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:27 UTC