Re: Area Director feedback on draft-reschke-webdav-search-15

Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>> As far as I understand, the original authors wanted to allow cases 
>> where a certain search arbiter could provide search functionality for 
>> a distinct set of resources. Think http://google.com implementing 
>> SEARCH. We all know that this hasn't been implemented in practice, 
>> but the specification still allows it.
>>
>> This means that clients can discover pro grammatically that a 
>> resource supports SEARCH, and what grammars it supports, but not the 
>> scopes that can be specified.
Yes, that is exactly the use case.  Back in the day it was Alta-Vista, 
not Google, but that was precisely the idea.
>> Now DAV:basicsearch is really designed for WebDAV resources. I assume 
>> that all non-interactive clients assume that a search arbiter 
>> supporting DAV:basicsearch really is capable of searching the URL 
>> namespace below itself. Is this a sane assumption? Can we make that a 
>> SHOULD?
Yes, "SHOULD" makes sense.  "MUST" would not be right, of course, but I 
agree that clients will make that assumption, so it ought to be encoded 
into the specification.
> 1) Supported Scope 
> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-webdav-search-15.html#rfc.section.5.4.2>) 
>
>
> My proposal is to make this a "SHOULD", and to mention the lack of 
> scope discovery in the the "Future Extensions" appendix.
And I look forward to reading of progress in addressing this gap.

-- 
Jim Davis
http://www.econetwork.net/~jdavis
jrd3@alum.mit.edu
416-929-5854

Received on Sunday, 29 June 2008 18:23:03 UTC