>OK, I think I see what you mean now. How about this: instead of
>having a single set of QueryChildCard attributes on the moz-abdirectory://
>URL, I think the right thing to do is to define a way to represent
>each query as a URI, and then assert the QueryChildCard properties on
>the relevant URI. This way you can have an arbitrary number of
>separate, concurrent searches under the moz-abdirectory:// namespace.
>This is exactly the way the LDAP datasource works. You could
>probably even borrow most of your URL syntax from the syntax of LDAP
>search URLs (RFC 2255).
>
>Given that writing the code to generate and parse such URIs is
>probably a bunch of work, for the time being you could probably just
>use opaque URI handles such as:
>
>moz-abdirectory://searches/search-1
>moz-abdirectory://searches/search-2
>...
>
>Thoughts?
>
Thanks! I see the light.
I was stuck in some precipitous local minima
of thought.
Copying somthing similar to ldap filter is
a good idea:
uri = scheme ":" path [ "?" query ]
query = "(" queryexpression ")"
querycomp = and | or | not | querycondition
and = "&" queryexpression
or = "|" queryexpression
not = "!" query
queryexpression = 1*query
querycondition = attr "," condition "," value
condition = equal | notequal |
lessthan | greaterthan |
beginswith | endswith |
contains | doesnotcontain |
soundslike | regex |
equal = "="
notequal = "!="
lessthan = "lt"
greaterthan = "gt"
beginswith = "bw"
endswith = "ew"
contains = "c"
doesnotcontain = "!c"
soundslike = "~="
regex = "regex"
attr = *(alphanum | escaped)
value = *(alphanum | escaped)
escaped = from RFC 2396
alphanum = from RFC 2396
This conforms to RFC 2396.
Should be 'reasonably' easy to parse so
i think i can do it fairly quickly.
>> I also like the concept of the Aurora project.
>> This is where generic querying/searching could be
>> very useful. Imagine having a 'virtual folder' which
>> is associated with a query which dynamically updates
>> when new content maching the query is asserted.
>> (e.g. virtual mail folders, or for news casts etc..)
>
>Agreed; this is very cool. As far as generic use of RDF, some very
>interesting stuff to look at is the Dublin Core metadata work.
><http://dublincore.org/resources/faq/> Once upon a time, there was a
>theory that we should replace the ad-hoc NC-rdf vocabulary used by
>much of the browser with something Dublin Core-based, to allow for
>better interoperability. Last time I looked at this, that seemed like
>it might be not terribly practical, because to express a bunch of the
>semantics in the NC-rdf vocabulary well would require using the
>Qualified Dublin Core, and this adds a non-trivial amount of
>complexity.
>
Yep, this is interesting.
I presume its because schemas start playing a
larger role that makes things more difficult,
rather than just using strings for many property
values.
There may be value in having a Dublin Core data
source which could read DC meta data values from
HTML data.
Thanks,
Paul.
| ? + ? = To question
----------------\
Paul Sandoz
x19219
+353-1-8199219
