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

RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 18:41:00 +0200
To: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMECOHEAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

OK,

here's the text I added to resolve this issue:


"Note to implementors: this specification does not mandate a specific
implementation of MOVE operations within the same parent collection.
Therefore, servers may either implement this as a simple rename operation
(preserving the collection member's position), or as a sequence of "remove"
and "add" (causing the semantics of "adding a new member" to apply). Future
revisions of this specification may specify this behaviour more precisely
based on future implementation experience."

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-latest
.html>

Jim, could you please issue the "immediate call for rough consensus"?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 6:56 PM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
>
>
>
> > Therefore, my proposal is to leave this specific point undefined.
> > We'd then still need to decide whether the spec should explicitly
> > point out that the behaviour is server-dependant.
>
> There doesn't appear to be consensus on this issue, hence we
> should leave it
> out of the spec.
>
> That said, given that we had discussion on this issue, it makes
> sense to try
> and capture some of that discussion in the specification, so that
> implementors aren't operating in a total vacuum on this issue. Minimally,
> the spec. should note that this behavior is intentionally undefined.
>
> - Jim
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 14:03:26 GMT

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