- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:29:49 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:33 PM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: discovery of search arbiters, was: Comments on search-00 > draft > > > > However, AFAIK in *current* implementations *each* WebDAV > > research can act > > as a SEARCH arbiter. In which case the discovery is trivial > > (just look at > > DAV:supported-search-grammar or DAV:supported-method-set). > > This is part of my point. If in all current implementations, every WebDAV > collection (resource?) can act as an arbiter, why not require that for > basicsearch support? Is there some prospective SEARCH implementation that > couldn't handle that? There could be some. Basically, you could have a search arbiter on server a which allows generic DAV.basicsearch queries on remote WebDAV servers (which only support standard PROPFIND). What would be the benefit of requiring this?
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 15:30:24 UTC