- 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>
> 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 grammar. 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