Re: CAP: Ordering of the components returned by the search command.

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Patrice Lapierre wrote:
> 
>  The latest proposal for CAP-QL states the following for the ordering
> of components returned by the search command:
> 

> I see some problems/limitations with this approach:
> 
>    (1) Often a CUA is not interested in any particular ordering.
>        Yet for VEVENTs an ordering is always defined. This causes
>        unnecessary processing on the server side.

The (old) debate was that the default fetch should be by
DATE or RECURRANCE-ID in UTC. That evolved into what it is now.

>    (2) When selecting everything (SELECT *) from a VEVENT. The
>        CUA might be interested in another ordering than DTSTART
>        (or RECURRENCE-ID).


>    (3) When selecting everything (SELECT *) from a component
>        that doesn't include a DTSTART, no ordering can be specified.

Not true, it is on the 1st item in the SELECT clause.

>    (4) If the first property in the a select clause occurs more than
>        once, the ordering is not defined.

Yes it is, it is by the first item in the SELECT clause.

>    (5) If the first property in the select clause is not present,
>        the ordering is not defined.

It has to have at least one item in the SELECT clause
or it is not a valid QUERY:

	QUERY:SELECT FROM VEVENT	; Is not valid.

>   To address these issues, I propose the addition of an optional
> "ORDER BY" clause (as in SQL). When not present no ordering is specified
> (this solves (1)).

We already beat this down and decided it could be an add on.

begin:vcard 
n:Royer;Doug
tel;pager:pager@xxxxxxxxx
tel;cell:208-520-4044
tel;fax:866-594-8574
tel;work:866-594-8574
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug
org:INET-Consulting LLC <http://INET-Consulting.com
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx
title:Chief Executive Manager
x-mozilla-cpt:;64
fn:Doug Royer
end:vcard