RE: comment on issues in DASL draft: query on href

> From:
> []On Behalf Of Jim Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:52 PM
> To:
> 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)


> >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

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 10:19:41 UTC