RE: collection with ordered members

What happens if you DELETE a compound document on a server which models
compound documents as a collection but does not support TREE methods?
That is why modeling compound documents as a collection is just wrong.

Simply PUT the document to the server. If the server understands the
structure of the compound document then INDEX will work on the document.
You can even PUT into its namespace to add members. At that point you
add headers to specify ordering information. This works on ALL DAV
servers, does not require support of TREE methods, fully supports
ordering, and doesn't require we change a line of the DAV spec.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 23, 1997 6:43 AM
> To:	Yaron Goland
> Cc:	'Judith Slein'; Jim Davis; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: collection with ordered members 
> 
> I have never understood your position that collections are not
> compound
> documents.  Collections can be used for many different purposes, and
> one of
> them could be the representation of compound documents if only we
> added
> ordering to their capabilities.
> 
> In fact, they are ideal for representing compound documents, because
> the
> main features of compound documents are:
> 
> 1. You can manipulate the document as a whole
> 2. You can manipulate each of the component pieces independently
> 3. Several compound documents can share the same component pieces
> 
> --Judy
> 
> At 12:43 PM 10/22/97 PDT, Yaron Goland wrote:
> >Because collections are NOT compound documents. Please refer to my
> >response to Jim's post for more details.
> >	Yaron
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:	Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com]
> >> Sent:	Wednesday, October 22, 1997 11:02 AM
> >> To:	Jim Davis
> >> Cc:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> >> Subject:	Re: collection with ordered members 
> >> 
> >> I'd like to weigh in with Jim and Larry in favor of adding ordering
> to
> >> collections.  This would be a significant gain in ability to
> support
> >> compound documents for very little pain.  Since Jim has volunteered
> to
> >> write it up, why not put it in the core spec?
> >> 
> >> At 08:57 PM 10/20/97 PDT, Jim Davis wrote:
> >> >For certain applications, it is important to be able to specify
> the
> >> order
> >> >of members of a collection.  For example,  a compound document
> made
> >> of
> >> >pages wants a well defined order of the pages.
> >> >
> >> >The spec says nothing whatsoever about the order of members when
> one
> >> does
> >> >an INDEX.  It should say something, even if what it says is "no
> >> promises".
> >> >
> >> >I would like to have ordered collections, but I can appreciate
> that
> >> in the
> >> >interests of simplicity you might not want to support this.  If
> there
> >> is
> >> >interest in extending the spec to support ordered collections, I
> >> would be
> >> >happy to write up some ideas about how to do it.  Basically, I'd
> >> suggest
> >> >adding headers to PUT and ADDREF allowing you to specify the URI
> of a
> >> >resource that the resource being added is to come either after or
> >> before.
> >> >I would not propose any method for re-ordering collections at this
> >> time.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 23 October 1997 16:34:35 UTC