- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 11:17:43 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
That sounds like the right thing to do. Ordering by lowest score first seems such a low-priority feature that if somebody turns out to need it someday they can add an extension for that. lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 12:41 AM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Proposed resolution for issue "score-pseudo-property" > > > Elias Anderson wrote: > > I agree that the spec should mention something about the intended > > interaction between DAV:nresults and DAV:score. The most straightforward > > approach would be to state that the server MUST follow the expected > > behavior. As much as I'd like to move the sorting cycles from the server > > to the client, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way to do this while > > still allowing truncated result sets. The fact that a server may > > truncate the result set of a SEARCH, without the client explicitly > > asking it to do so, leads me to believe that sorting is an inherently > > server-side activity. > > Thinking about it, the relationship *really* is between DAV:nresults and > the > presence of DAV:score -- not the fact that the client requests ordering by > DAV:score. Is there a use case for combining DAV:nresults with ordering by > DAV:score in *ascending* order (lowest scores first)? > > If not, we can just point out that combining any operator that produces > scores (right now thats DAV:contains) with DAV:results should cause the > server to return the "n" top scoring results. > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 >
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2002 14:18:08 UTC