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

RE: Consideration of WebDAV Ordered Collections Protocol as Proposed Standard

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:32:53 -0700
To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMICEGIHNAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>

Accidentally caught by the spam filter. I have added
"geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com" to the accept2 list.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:15 AM
To: WebDAV
Subject: [Moderator Action] RE: Consideration of WebDAV Ordered
Collections Protocol as Proposed Standard




Adding that is fine with me.

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 06/12/2003 06:59:38 AM:

>
> Hi.
>
> Ted Hardie has raised the following issue with the current draft of the
> ordering protocol...
>
> In section 6.1 we say:
>
> "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."
>
> The issue here is that *if* we don't want to mandate a specific server
> behaviour, we should at least give client developers some guidance about
how
> to achieve what they want (in this case a simple "rename" within the
same
> parent collection where the ordering -- if present -- is preserved).
>
> The pseudo-code for this would be:
>
> 1) PROPFIND/Depth 1 on parent collection, getting DAV:ordering-type
>
> 2) if DAV:ordering-type not present or == "dav:unordered", just proceed
as
> before
>
> 3) determine position of member to be renamed (such as "first" or "after
x")
>
> 4) add Position header to MOVE request, specifying the previous position
>
>
> This should work with both kinds of servers (the one implementing this
as
> UNBIND/BIND will obey the Position header, the other one will simply
ignore
> it and thereby preserve the ordering).
>
> Is everybody OK with this example being added to the draft?
>
>
> Julian
>
>
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 13:33:12 GMT

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