RE: collection with ordered members

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
>