RE: collection with ordered members

Fair enough as far as defining a body for MKCOL is concerned, provided that
you can include external members in the pipelined stuff and that the order
in which the members are sent is treated as significant.  And it has to be
possible to insert new members later at a particular sequence in the
compound document.

At 10:20 AM 10/28/97 PST, Yaron Goland wrote:
>Ahh.. you are not arguing for a new feature, you are arguing for a
>performance enhancement. In such a case the feature would only be
>compelling if you can demonstrate that it would provide a substantial
>performance enhancement over just pipelining the PUT requests for the
>pieces of the document directly to the server.
>	Yaron
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Judith Slein [SMTP:slein@wrc.xerox.com]
>> Sent:	Tuesday, October 28, 1997 6:25 AM
>> To:	Yaron Goland
>> Cc:	'Judith Slein'; Jim Davis; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org; Jim Whitehead
>> (E-mail)
>> Subject:	RE: collection with ordered members 
>> 
>> At 11:16 AM 10/24/97 PDT, Yaron Goland wrote:
>> >Furthermore, the issue is not one of a simple "magic bullet" and all
>> of a
>> >sudden all servers are able to support compound documents. There are
>> two
>> >steps to this process. First the server has to understand the
>> particular
>> >compound document format the client is using THEN the server has to
>> support
>> >the compound document features. So discovery MUST occur, first for
>> the
>> >document format and then for the compound document features.
>> >
>> No, I was supposing that the burden would be on the client to
>> transform the
>> compound document into members of a collection before submitting it to
>> the
>> server.  That's why I suggest defining a body for the MKCOL that a DAV
>> server would be required to support.  
>> 
>> --Judy
>> 
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 October 1997 19:15:44 UTC