- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:19:46 -0400
- To: "'Max Rible'" <max@glyphica.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Max Rible [mailto:max@glyphica.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 6:12 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: RE: Advanced collections and ordering > > > At 16:34 4/21/99 -0400, Slein, Judith A wrote: > > > I think you want to reference section 11.3 instead of 10.3. > I figured that it was just a placeholder and had just begun thinking > about a DAV:supportedorder property and what subelements it should > have when I scanned down and found that 11.3 had the DAV:options for > the OPTIONS request. :-) As an off-the-cuff suggestion, the > DAV:orderingoptions could have a bunch of DAV:ordering elements, each > with a DAV:href of the ordering, a DAV:responsedescription or > DAV:orderdescription describing it for display in the user interface, > and some property (DAV:orderingtype, DAV:orderingbase, > DAV:orderingmaint?) > that explains whether it's client-maintained or server-maintained > (DAV:client, DAV:server?). Thanks for catching the bad cross-reference. It's on my list of things to fix. I think only server-maintained orderings would be found in the list coming back from OPTIONS. The server has to allow any client-maintained ordering, so the possibilities there are completely open-ended. Including a description of the ordering for human consumption might be useful, though. > > The main reason I can see for including options for server-maintained > orderings in WebDAV is that once you make orderings possible, WebDAV > clients will then pay attention to order, rather than doing their > own sorting; as soon as you have clients paying attention to order, > you'll have administrators wanting to choose the order that clients > see. Specifying DASL or XQL queries for *specifying* the > server-maintained > ordering is probably too big a can of worms to open. I think > the DAV:options idea leaves enough room for later fine tuning after > WebDAV has had some time to evolve, and does not impose an undue > burden on implementors. > Good. Thanks again for your suggestions and for reviewing the latest changes. --Judy Judith A. Slein Xerox Corporation jslein@crt.xerox.com (716)422-5169 800 Phillips Road 105/50C Webster, NY 14580
Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 12:17:04 UTC