Re: Dealing with large collections [Re: URI constraints]

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ezra Cooper wrote:
> I think so. On the upside, this approach gives control to the server 
> over how to slice and dice. On the downside, it seems this gets the 
> server into the "presentation" business: figuring out how to subdivide 
> that 1000-entry day in a way that the user would want to browse through.
>
> Clients are (hopefully) going to have all kinds of creative ways for 
> users to browse through their collections. If the server determines the 
> browse hierarchy, it's harder for clients to do that.
...
> If there is no query language, syncing is harder, since clients have to 
> trudge through the collection hierarchy, but it is workable.

I didn't mean to imply that these two approaches should be mutually 
exclusive. How are you guys planning on exposing, say posts limited to a 
certain category/label? Would that be through PROPFIND/SEARCH or would 
categories be exposed as different collections that only contained bindings?

Robert Sayre