RE: discovery of search arbiters, was: Comments on search-00 draft

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:00 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: discovery of search arbiters, was: Comments on search-00
> draft
>
>
> >>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?
> >
>
> The benefit would be that if the client sees "basicsearch" in the OPTIONS
> request for the server, then they know exactly how to find a
> search arbiter.
> Choose any collection. Easy.

Not really. If it sees "DAV:basicsearch" in the DASL header upon OPTIONs, it
knows that the resource at the request URI *is* a search arbiter. Absence of
the DASL header doesn't really tell anything, because the resource might not
be aware of possible search arbiters.

> It seems to be a tradeoff between easier implementation for the
> client, and
> possibly easier implementation for servers.  We tend to see first the
> server's point of view in these mailing lists (including me!)

I don't agree. If every resource can act as search arbiter, this is trivial
to detect (using OPTIONS or PROPFIND
supported-method-set/supported-search-grammar-set). If not, there's really
not a lot we can do to help the client.

Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 16:21:49 UTC