W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1997

RE: collection with ordered members

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 06:43:21 PDT
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971023094321.00a837e0@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I have never understood your position that collections are not compound
documents.  Collections can be used for many different purposes, and one of
them could be the representation of compound documents if only we added
ordering to their capabilities.

In fact, they are ideal for representing compound documents, because the
main features of compound documents are:

1. You can manipulate the document as a whole
2. You can manipulate each of the component pieces independently
3. Several compound documents can share the same component pieces

--Judy

At 12:43 PM 10/22/97 PDT, Yaron Goland wrote:
>Because collections are NOT compound documents. Please refer to my
>response to Jim's post for more details.
>	Yaron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com]
>> Sent:	Wednesday, October 22, 1997 11:02 AM
>> To:	Jim Davis
>> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>> Subject:	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.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 October 1997 09:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT