- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 09:05:45 +0200
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 2:29 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: More on ordered collections > > > > I agree there's little we can do about the safe-save algorithms that use > MOVE, sadly. In fact, the correctest behavior for MOVE is probably, as > with version histories, to retain the source resource's ordering > position if a destination is overwritten. > > However, if a destination is not being overwritten, then shouldn't the > MOVE (the rename) preserve ordering? From a client's point of view: almost certainly. The spec currently lets this depend on whether the server implements this as a single rename or a bind/unbind (in which a new binding is created and the previous is removed). Before I add some language about this, I'd like to get some more additional opinions. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 03:05:56 UTC