- From: Jim Davis <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 11:10:45 -0700
- To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
At 07:11 PM 6/8/00 -0700, Steve Haflich wrote: >You still need to split that hair, methinks. _If_ it is indeed >possible for an implementation to return both zero length and null >strings (is it possible???) then the sort order must specify which >sorts first. it is certainly possible in WebDAV for an implementation to return both zero length and null strings, so I agree with Steve. We do have to make the distinction. I would argue for option 3, (sort order MUST be either first, or last, but which one is left to the implementation.) Looking just at the plausible underlying implementations (Oracle, Postgree, DMA, and generic SQL), we see that option 3 is the most specific common definition possible. The meta-principle I am applying here is that WebDAV should be inexpensive to implement. If we mandated either choice 1 or 2, it would make implementation expensive on systems that sorted the other way. A client that really cares about the sort order of null can accomplish this cheaply at the client side, since the values (or lack of values) are in the reply. Given a choice between making the server side implementation expensive, and adding a small penalty to the client side, I say the client should pay, because it spreads the work out more evenly. Is there any objection to choice 3
Received on Friday, 9 June 2000 14:40:24 UTC