- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:55:58 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <ACL@webdav.org>, "WebDAV Working Group" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEPEDCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
(sorry: wrong attachment) > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 5:46 PM > To: ACL@webdav.org; WebDAV Working Group > Subject: REPORT vs SEARCH > > > Hi, > > due to the recent discussion on the ACL list, I have done a comparison of > PROPFIND, (ACL/deltaV) REPORT and (DASL) SEARCH. My conclusions are: > > - There are three methods with partly overlapping features: PROPFIND > (defined in RFC2518), REPORT (defined in the soon-to-appear > deltaV RFC) and > SEARCH (expired draft). > REPORT and SEARCH seem to be almost identical in features -- both just > define frameworks into which query/report grammars can be plugged in. > - There doesn't seem to be anything in the DASL framework that couldn't be > done with REPORT. In fact, query grammar (REPORT) discovery seems > to have a > more elegant solution. > > Proposal: drop work on DASL. Instead define an (extensible) equivalent of > DAV:basicseach, with the following additional features: > > - discovery of searchable properties > - discovery of supported constructs in the grammar > - better signaling of execution errors (non-searchable properties, not > recognized grammar constructs) > - definition of a mandatory subset of query grammar features > > Publish this as separate RFC, or possibly move it into RFC2518++. > > (the actual tabular comparison is attached as HTML). > > Julian >
Attachments
- text/html attachment: report-vs-dasl.html
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:55:36 UTC