- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:23:40 +0200
- To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
John Barone wrote: >> 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. > > Completely understood. I'm just saying a client may not want results > that aren't ordered over the entire result set. It might be preferred > to get no results (and have to further refine the search) than to get > truncated results that aren't "globaly" ordered. I do agree that this may be more useful. I'm just skeptic about making this change many years after people have written implementations. >> If you feel strongly about that, we *could* add a statement into the > "future extensions" appendix. > > I don't feel that strongly about this, just a nice-to-have for some > clients. > > >> 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. > > This I think is a bigger deal. If you acknowledge that some servers > cannot (at least easily) order a global result set and then limit the > results returned, then how can this be a MUST? Seems like the same > issue to me. I just checked the document's history, and that particular requirement was added in 2003, see the thread around <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webdav-dasl/2002OctDec/0033.html>. Back then we probably did not realize that we're introducing an inconsistency between truncation (server enforced) and limiting (on behalf of the client). If this is a minor problem, we should just state it somewhere. If it's a major problem, we could try to fix it. The server I worked on didn't truncate, so I don't have a strong preference. That being said, it would be interesting to know how the other servers (Xythos, Catacomb, Slide...?) behave... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 16:24:23 UTC