- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:48:44 +0100
- To: Kevin Wiggen <kwiggen@xythos.com>
- Cc: "Wallmer, Martin" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Kevin Wiggen wrote: > <KW> I am not disagreeing that with BINDS the <last-pathsegment> will > make this more difficult, but does it really matter where the clause > lives? Yes having the power of putting <last-pathsegment> in the WHERE > might make things hard for some implementations, it's not impossible. I > truly believe that it is something people will want to be able to do. > Supporting multiple scopes is hard based on your implementation also and > that made it in the spec. Yep, but only as an *optional* feature... > You can still > a) create the matching set of objects based on non <last-pathsegment> > parts of the where (you can do this whether the <last-pathsegment> is in > the where or not > b) apply the scope and the <last-pathsegment>. Yes you might need to > be more intelligent here as the <last-pathsegment> might be intertwined > with other WHERE segments. Well, that can get really hard. I'm not going to add this feature unless we can make it reasonably straightforward to implement... > <KW> Same could be said for the <d:contains> which IS part of the WHERE > clause. Simply say this cannot be used in the SELECT and is simply > there to help narrow down a search </KW> > > I think it is somewhat humorous that I am usually arguing to keep things > simple and in this case you are saying my suggestion is too hard :) Isn't it? Some thoughts: - the optimal number of optional features in a spec is zero (I've stolen this, I'm not sure who said it first) - let's concentrate on resolve the open issues in the spec instead of continuously inventing new ones... > In the end if you DO want to simply add it to the scope (which I think > takes away some power for clients and should be thought through), why > not allow someone to create <WHERE> type syntax with <and> <or> <not> on > a <last-pathsegment> type of scope xml fragmant. Then we don't have to > argue or explain what the ordering of <AND> and <OR> etc is and the > client can make it up themselves. See above. Unless we can agree on something simple, I'll prefer not to it at all (for now, that is). Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 13:53:29 UTC