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

["Graham Gilmore" <grahamg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Royer wrote:
>
> I sent a reply to Patrice's proposal and this might work (However
> I don't see it on the list yet - which is odd).
>
> It was something like:
>
> We could add ORDER-BY
>
> Issues:
>
> Currently in CAP only the first select value is
> required to be sorted.
>
> So, would ORDER-BY just take one argument?
> If more than one, could you agree to:
>
> A CS MUST sort by the first ORDER-BY value
> and SHOULD sort by any additional arguments.

    You mentioned this in your latest response to Patrice's proposal.  It
makes sense to me, for what that's worth.
    ( s/SHOULD/MAY  ? )

> Then if we were to add your "ORDER-BY NONE";
> then we could get the behavior that has been proposed
> for over a year by NOT including ORDER-BY, and for those
> that want un-sorted, they could add ORDER-BY NONE.
>
> In that way we don't have to re-visit the old debate
> as we will not be changing any existing behavior.

    That's exactly what I meant to say.  :-)  I guess I wasn't clear enough.
I was proposing a way to keep the existing behaviour that you had outlined,
and Patrice's ORDER-BY property with a simple addition that would also
permit the CS to return unordered results.

    Graham