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

RE: More on ordered collections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:05:45 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOELAGPAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:29 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: More on ordered collections
>
>
>
> I agree there's little we can do about the safe-save algorithms that use
> MOVE, sadly.  In fact, the correctest behavior for MOVE is probably, as
> with version histories, to retain the source resource's ordering
> position if a destination is overwritten.
>
> However, if a destination is not being overwritten, then shouldn't the
> MOVE (the rename) preserve ordering?

From a client's point of view: almost certainly.

The spec currently lets this depend on whether the server implements this as
a single rename or a bind/unbind (in which a new binding is created and the
previous is removed). Before I add some language about this, I'd like to get
some more additional opinions.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 03:05:56 GMT

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