Re: Advanced collections and ordering

Yes, this would be for a read-only interface.  Which makes it of minimal
(if any :-) interest.

It's starting to look to me that what people really
want is a "query" collection, which has a one property which is the
collection being queried against, another property which
defines the ordering, and perhaps another "filter" property which
defines the subset of the collection you wish to see.

My personal opinion is that adding something minimal to ordered collections
(like a standard name for server defined orderings) won't get us anywhere
close to where people want to be.

Cheers,
Geoff

> From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
> Mmm, that sounds like it'd be good for read-only, but you could run into trouble if
> you wanted to add a resource to one of the orderings.

> 
> "Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote:
> 
> > And based on a few minutes of thought (and therefore at risk of being
> > significantly wrong :-), I believe that the new "bind" style advanced
> > collections being proposed would be very compatible with a server that
> > wanted to present several "ordered collections" containing the same
> > resources, but sorted by different orderings.
>