W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 1999

RE: Advanced collections and ordering

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:19:46 -0400
Message-ID: <201BB34B3A73D1118C1F00805F1582E801BA4DAA@x-wb-0128-nt8.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "'Max Rible'" <max@glyphica.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Rible [mailto:max@glyphica.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 6:12 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Advanced collections and ordering
> At 16:34 4/21/99 -0400, Slein, Judith A wrote:
> I think you want to reference section 11.3 instead of 10.3.
> I figured that it was just a placeholder and had just begun thinking 
> about a DAV:supportedorder property and what subelements it should 
> have when I scanned down and found that 11.3 had the DAV:options for 
> the OPTIONS request.  :-)  As an off-the-cuff suggestion, the 
> DAV:orderingoptions could have a bunch of DAV:ordering elements, each 
> with a DAV:href of the ordering, a DAV:responsedescription or 
> DAV:orderdescription describing it for display in the user interface, 
> and some property (DAV:orderingtype, DAV:orderingbase, 
> DAV:orderingmaint?) 
> that explains whether it's client-maintained or server-maintained 
> (DAV:client, DAV:server?).

Thanks for catching the bad cross-reference.  It's on my list of things to

I think only server-maintained orderings would be found in the list coming
back from OPTIONS.  The server has to allow any client-maintained ordering,
so the possibilities there are completely open-ended.
Including a description of the ordering for human consumption might be
useful, though.

> The main reason I can see for including options for server-maintained
> orderings in WebDAV is that once you make orderings possible, WebDAV
> clients will then pay attention to order, rather than doing their
> own sorting; as soon as you have clients paying attention to order,
> you'll have administrators wanting to choose the order that clients
> see.  Specifying DASL or XQL queries for *specifying* the 
> server-maintained
> ordering is probably too big a can of worms to open.  I think
> the DAV:options idea leaves enough room for later fine tuning after
> WebDAV has had some time to evolve, and does not impose an undue
> burden on implementors.

Good.  Thanks again for your suggestions and for reviewing the latest


Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 12:17:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:19 UTC