- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 15:17:02 -0400
- To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > From: Clemm, Geoff > > From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > > It seems from draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-07 that only > version-controlled resources are part of the ordering of > version-controlled collections (Section 9: "for compatibility with > RFC3253, only the ordering of version-controlled members needs to > be maintained") > > Does that mean there's no way to order versioned and unversioned > resources together within a version-controlled collection? > > That is correct. The issue is that when you UPDATE a > version-controlled collection with a new version, it can change the > set of version-controlled members, and there would not be a way to > define what the ordering of the existing non-version-controlled > members should be wrt the new version-controlled members. For instance, we can define that the UPDATE operation does not define the ordering of those members (that is, the server (a) may insert them in arbitrary places or (b) must insert them at the end). Currently the postcondition is: "(DAV:update-version-controlled-collection-members-ordered): If the request modified the DAV:checked-in version of a version-controlled collection and the DAV:ordering-type for the checked-in version is not unordered ("DAV:unordered"), the version-controlled members MUST be ordered according to the checked-in version's DAV:version-controlled-binding-set property." How about adding: "Members that are not version-controlled MUST be moved to the end of the ordering (in no particular order)." This behaviour would be consistent with section 6.1 (setting the position when no ordering information was specified). That would be fine with me, or just saying that the order of the non-version-controlled members is server-defined following the UPDATE. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 15:17:14 UTC