W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@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 17:47:12 +0200
Message-ID: <48972480.1060107@gmx.de>
To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org

Hi John,

thanks for the comments.

The server I worked on a long time ago never truncated results, so I 
don't have any preference.

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.

If you feel strongly about that, we *could* add a statement into the 
"future extensions" appendix.

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.

BR, Julian

John Barone wrote:
> Some comments:
> In section 2.3.1 Result Set Truncation 
> - Would be nice to indicate what the search limit is (after what number
> of results was the query truncated)
> - Partial results: I read this to mean whatever partial results you send
> back, they must be ordered (within themselves)
> as the client requested.  In many cases the client wants the full list
> ordered, and then send back the partial results.
> Any way to indicate this in the request; i.e. if you have to send back
> partial results (a 507 condition) I want them fully ordered, not just
> within themselves?  Perhaps the server can send back a 507 response for
> the arbiter URI and no results, if it can't comply with ordering the
> full result set, and sending back partial results.
> In section 5.17.1 Relationship to Result Ordering
> - I read this to mean that the full results should first be ordered by
> the server, and then send back the requested limit.  This seems to
> contradict what's specified in section 2.3.1, where the results are
> limited and then ordered (if I'm reading it correctly).  I think these 2
> sections should be consistent with each other.
> Regards,
> -John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 9:12 AM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Cc: WebDAV
> Subject: getting WebDAV SEARCH ready for the IESG
> Hi,
> we recently made some progress on getting WebDAV SEARCH ready for
> publication.
> We received some feedback from Chris Newman, and the latest edits on the
> draft
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest.ht
> ml>,
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-latest-fro
> m-previous.diff.html>)
> take those into account.
> Unless there's new feedback, I'm planning to submit this as draft 16,
> which, if all goes well, will then by last called.
> Feedback appreciated,
> Julian
> This email and any attachments may contain confidential and proprietary
> information of Blackboard that is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient.  If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying,
> re-distribution or other use of any of this information is strictly
> prohibited.  Please immediately notify the sender and delete this
> transmission if you received this email in error.
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 15:58:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:43 UTC