RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the draft

> From:
> []On Behalf Of yamuna prakash
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 11:45 AM
> To:;
> Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the
> draft
> Thanks Julian.
> Your responses were very helpful. I would be curious to know what other
> issues you forsee with multiple scopes.
> I had one final question on this issue. From what I have heard so far, it
> seems like URIs of different schemes (basically ftp, http, etc)
> are issues.
> In which case I am wondering if there is any issue if all the URIs are of
> particular scheme lets say http?

A SEARCH arbiter *usually* will not use HTTP to actually access
(PROPFIND...) the resources in scope. Instead, it will just go though
whatever internal APIs it has to the resources. If there is more than one
scope, it's just more likely that it won't be a single API, or that it is
API but it behaves differently for the various scopes.

> i.e would there be issues if the SEARCH arbiter was asked to
> search in the
> scope of and ?


> In one of your mails you mentioned that I should make a proposal  for
> 5.4. I was hoping you could provide me some pointers on how I go
> about doing this.


If section 5.4 is supposed to allow multiple scopes, it will need to define
precisely how this affects the search results. For instance, a reader may
think that it is acceptable to just process individual requests against each
of the scopes, and then to concatenate the response elements for a common
multistatus result. I guess this is not the desired behaviour, right?


<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Monday, 6 October 2003 13:05:59 UTC