W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Ordered collections and versioned collections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 09:39:42 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEHLGPAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 4:41 AM
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: RE: Ordered collections and versioned collections
>
>
>
>    From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
>
>    It seems from draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-07 that only
>    version-controlled resources are part of the ordering of
>    version-controlled collections (Section 9: "for compatibility with
>    RFC3253, only the ordering of version-controlled members needs to
>    be maintained")
>
>    Does that mean there's no way to order versioned and unversioned
>    resources together within a version-controlled collection?
>
> That is correct.  The issue is that when you UPDATE a
> version-controlled collection with a new version, it can change the
> set of version-controlled members, and there would not be a way to
> define what the ordering of the existing non-version-controlled
> members should be wrt the new version-controlled members.

Wait-a-minute :-)

For instance, we can define that the UPDATE operation does not define the
ordering of those members (that is, the server (a) may insert them in
arbitrary places or (b) must insert them at the end). Currently the
postcondition is:

"(DAV:update-version-controlled-collection-members-ordered): If the request
modified the DAV:checked-in version of a version-controlled collection and
the DAV:ordering-type for the checked-in version is not unordered
("DAV:unordered"), the version-controlled members MUST be ordered according
to the checked-in version's DAV:version-controlled-binding-set property."

How about adding:

"Members that are not version-controlled MUST be moved to the end of the
ordering (in no particular order)."

This behaviour would be consistent with section 6.1 (setting the position
when no ordering information was specified).

Julian


--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 03:39:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT