W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > November 2013

Re: paging in editor's draft

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:05:12 -0400
To: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CE991DAD.12292%erik.wilde@emc.com>
On 2013-11-01, 03:59 , "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:
>On 11/1/2013 1:04 AM, Wilde, Erik wrote:
>> to me, the whole idea that there is some "natural order" to a
>>collection leads to all kinds of false assumptions. a collection is a
>>set, so there is no such thing as "inserting in the middle of it".
>We have the ability to order members of a collection.  See 5..1.3.
>This makes the collection a sequence.

does it? you can have views ordered in a variety of ways (and could add a
a layer on top of LDP asking an LDP server to provide differently sorted
views of the same collection), but inherently, i would argue, the
underlying collection still *is* a set. ³inserting new data into a view²
to me is a weird concept. even with o:value, ordering is not fully
defined, because ordering depends on more than just values. it depends on
value types, and sort rules defined on those types. i donıt think we
should even try to answer those questions, but i think it demonstrates
that ordering is a server-controlled concept that is not fully exposed,
and cannot be used for anything other than server-controlled
representations (such as ordered pages).

cheers,

dret.
Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 16:06:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:17:46 UTC