- From: yamuna prakash <yamunap@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 21:02:18 +0000
- To: julian.reschke@gmx.de, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Agreed. I think it would be beneficial to make it optional rather than preculde it totally. The other maybe goes into the nice to have list :) prakash >From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> >To: "yamuna prakash" <yamunap@hotmail.com>, ><julian.reschke@gmx.de>,<www-webdav-dasl@w3.org> >Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the draft >Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 13:24:45 +0200 > > > > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of yamuna prakash > > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:02 PM > > To: julian.reschke@gmx.de; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > > Subject: RE: draft-reschke-webdav-search-05 - a few questions on the > > draft > > > > > > > > From my perspective the behavior should be identical as to what > > is defined > > for single scope i.e. I believe all the other aspects of a search >request > > (select, where, orderby, etc) should behave the way they have > > been defined > > for single scope. > > > > However I can see scenarios wherein it would definitely be useful if the > > user can specify the ability to group results by scope. > > .. > >See, > >this is exactly why we are so reluctant to add new things. Frequently, they >turn out to be not as simple as suggested. > >So I'd propose either to make the minimal change I suggested (allowing >multiple scopes (optional), and defining a condition code for servers that >don't support that), or not to put it into DAV:basicsearch. > >Julian > >-- ><green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > > _________________________________________________________________ Three simple steps. They guarantee your safety. http://server1.msn.co.in/features/general/SMBvirus/index.asp Protect yourself against the SMB.EXE virus.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 17:08:12 UTC