Re: collection with ordered members

I'd like to weigh in with Jim and Larry in favor of adding ordering to
collections.  This would be a significant gain in ability to support
compound documents for very little pain.  Since Jim has volunteered to
write it up, why not put it in the core spec?

At 08:57 PM 10/20/97 PDT, Jim Davis wrote:
>For certain applications, it is important to be able to specify the order
>of members of a collection.  For example,  a compound document made of
>pages wants a well defined order of the pages.
>
>The spec says nothing whatsoever about the order of members when one does
>an INDEX.  It should say something, even if what it says is "no promises".
>
>I would like to have ordered collections, but I can appreciate that in the
>interests of simplicity you might not want to support this.  If there is
>interest in extending the spec to support ordered collections, I would be
>happy to write up some ideas about how to do it.  Basically, I'd suggest
>adding headers to PUT and ADDREF allowing you to specify the URI of a
>resource that the resource being added is to come either after or before.
>I would not propose any method for re-ordering collections at this time.
>
>
>
>