W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2001


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 19:39:02 +0200
To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, <ACL@webdav.org>, "WebDAV Working Group" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEPKDCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: acl-admin@webdav.org [mailto:acl-admin@webdav.org]On Behalf Of Jim
> Whitehead
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:26 PM
> To: ACL@webdav.org; WebDAV Working Group
> Subject: RE: [ACL] REPORT vs SEARCH
> Julian Reschke writes:
> ...
> In my view, each of these methods has its niche, and each has value.  As a
> result, I favor:
> a) continued development on the DASL specification. Lisa Dusseault has
> volunteered to edit this specification, and I'm expecting a new draft from
> her in the near future.
> b) the addition of specialized REPORTs into protocol specifications, as
> needed.
> > Proposal: drop work on DASL.
> I think this is a bad idea.  A general purpose search mechanism
> is necessary
> to unlock the value of properties.

Yes, that is why I proposed to make DAV:basicsearch a REPORT.

>  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++.
> These look like a useful set of requirements for DASL.

I think you partly missed my point.

Both REPORT and SEARCH define frameworks for pluggable query grammars /
reports. I really can't see where the distinction between reports and
searches you made is reflected in the specs.

However, the framework for REPORT is already there (almost in RFC form), and
I think it's technically superior (regarding discovery of query grammars /
reports). So my proposal is to drop the DASL *framework* and re-use the one
used in REPORT, and to update / modify DAV:basicsearch to become a report.
By dropping the requirement to define a framework for SEARCH, we save a lot
of time that can be invested much better on the actual DAV:basicsearch

If you disagree, I'd like to understand why we need the SEARCH framework
when we already have REPORT.

Regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 13:38:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:24 UTC