- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 14:50:52 -0800
- To: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I'm glad that you will be able to do a comparison of the work space. Your first work space summary was very useful, as you will see in the new draft, I have made several changes based on it. Section 7 now reads: 7. URI Groups Any URI, which has a representation of content type application/container, is defined to be a URI container. Content type application/container will use the SiteMap format. Members are listed, added, or removed from the container by performing actions on application/container. The advantage of SiteMaps in this context is that they are designed to point to other SiteMaps. In this way a hierarchy can be built and when an operation is performed it will act recursively down the tree. I should note that my use of SiteMap is preliminary. The specification is in flux and may or may not eventually meet our needs. For now I am using it as a placeholder so we can solve the truly hairy problems. In the worst case we will just come out with our own definition. Yaron >-----Original Message----- >From: Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com] >Sent: Thursday, October 31, 1996 10:59 AM >To: Yaron Goland >Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Subject: Re: Request for Comment > >Yaron -- > >I'll take the action to look at the DMA spec in comparison with our work >here. However successful or unsuccessful DMA turns out to be, it provides a >useful map of the problem space we are trying to cover. I think that Dennis >Hamilton, who has contributed largely to the DMA spec, is planning to attend >our November meeting, so he'll be able to help with any discussion of DMA in >relation to webdav. > >On the subject of containment, section 7 of the spec proposes to use >SiteMaps as the new content type to represent containers. I'd like to >change the name of the mime type to application/container to emphasize the >fact that it can represent something other than a URL hierarchy. For the >case where it's a document management system that stands behind the Web >server, it may be desirable for the location parameter of a node in the >SiteMap to be expressible as something other than a URL. > >I think it would be very useful to be able to do recursive deletes, >undeletes, and destroys on resources referenced by a container. > >At 09:29 PM 10/30/96 PST, Yaron Goland wrote: >>I wanted comment on these ideas before I did anything with them. Note that >>the following contains very rough drafts. >> Thanks, >> Yaron >> >> >>I realize that DMA is about as popular as an Electro Magnetic Pulse but >>someone (read: NOT ME) should really go through the DMA spec, >>http://www.aiim.org/dma/spec75/index.html, and see how well we measure up. >> >>Currently there is no way to delete the contents of a directory. A >>directory is really just a sitemap file which allows one to group various >>unrelated URIs together. However if one were to want to delete all the URIs >>in the directory one would have to send delete requests for each URI. The >>logic extends if one wants to delete a directory and all its sub >>directories. One of the reasons for this behavior is that many of the >>common container commands, such as copy and move, have no meaning in this >>context. If I have a container with URLs foo/bar and bar/foo then the only >>way to copy them is to specify for each one where they are to go. If I >>order "copy foo/bar and bar/foo to foobar" what does this mean? However >>delete and undelete are different, they have a very obvious meaning in the >>context of our containers. Should we add headers in the mime-type for >>delete, undelete, and destroy to allow the command to be applied to the >>contents of a directory in a possibly recursive manner? >> >> >> >Name: Judith A. Slein >E-Mail: slein@wrc.xerox.com >Phone: 8*222-5169 >Fax: (716) 265-7133 >MailStop: 128-29E >
Received on Thursday, 31 October 1996 17:50:57 UTC