- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 16:19:05 +0200
- To: "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:52 PM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: comment on issues in DASL draft: query on href > > > At 09:54 AM 5/28/02 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > > > ...While it is true > > > that RFC 2518 does not define an href property, DASL is not > > > restricted to > > > searching only those properties defined by RFC 2518. In theory, any > > > property could be searched. So if a DASL search arbiter > wants to support > > > search on a property whose name is DAV:href, there is no obstacle. > > > .. > > > >Yes, there is. DASL should't get into the business of defining new pseudo > >properties. If something needs to be queryable, but isn't a > WebDAV property, > >then > > > >- either make it a full-blown WebDAV property, or > >- don't use a property to express the query condition. > > I'm sorry, when I wrote "properties defined by RFC 2518" I meant "one of > the eight DAV properties" (which are listed in section 13 of RFC 2518). > > Note that a server could support DASL for search without > supporting WebDAV, > including PROPFIND and PROPATCH, that is, with no support whatsoever for > anyone reading or setting any WedDAV properties. The properties might be > added by the arbiter in the course of its indexing or operations (e.g. > ratings) True. > >Another issue with DAV:href being a property is that depending on the > >server, the href may be a full absolute URI (including protocol, host, > >port...), a relative URI reference starting with "/" or even a > relative URI > >reference (not starting with "/" and relative to the parent > collection). So > >we would have to define what this property really is, and it > couldn't be the > >same thing as the DAV.href *element* for all servers. > > But this is likewise true of many properties, no? Such as? The main issue is that both the URI and the name within the collection aren't properties of the resource -- they are properties of the resource's binding. The same resource may have several bindings and therefore several URIs, so this really can't be considered to be a property of the resource itself.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 10:19:41 UTC