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

RE: collection with ordered members

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:20:38 -0800
Message-ID: <11352BDEEB92CF119F3F00805F14F48503F9F1F7@red-44-msg.dns.microsoft.com>
To: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Cc: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, "Jim Whitehead (E-mail)" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Ahh.. you are not arguing for a new feature, you are arguing for a
performance enhancement. In such a case the feature would only be
compelling if you can demonstrate that it would provide a substantial
performance enhancement over just pipelining the PUT requests for the
pieces of the document directly to the server.
	Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, October 28, 1997 6:25 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'Judith Slein'; Jim Davis; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Jim Whitehead
> (E-mail)
> Subject:	RE: collection with ordered members 
> 
> At 11:16 AM 10/24/97 PDT, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >Furthermore, the issue is not one of a simple "magic bullet" and all
> of a
> >sudden all servers are able to support compound documents. There are
> two
> >steps to this process. First the server has to understand the
> particular
> >compound document format the client is using THEN the server has to
> support
> >the compound document features. So discovery MUST occur, first for
> the
> >document format and then for the compound document features.
> >
> No, I was supposing that the burden would be on the client to
> transform the
> compound document into members of a collection before submitting it to
> the
> server.  That's why I suggest defining a body for the MKCOL that a DAV
> server would be required to support.  
> 
> --Judy
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 1997 13:21:10 GMT

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