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

RE: Ordered collections and versioned collections

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 15:17:02 -0400
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE20260E5E3@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

   > From:  Clemm, Geoff
   >
   >    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.

   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).

That would be fine with me, or just saying that the order of the
non-version-controlled members is server-defined following the UPDATE.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 15:17:14 GMT

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