RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 10:30 PM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
>
>
>
> Geoff writes:
> > The "principle of regularity" states that if a moved resource  is moved
to
> > the end of the ordering in some cases, it is more regular for it
> > to be moved to the end of the ordering in all cases, and not make the
> > behavior dependent on whether the destination collection is the same as
> > the source collection.
> > For folks that expect regularity, it will be "less astonishing" for the
> > behavior to be regular, and not special-cased in the way you suggest.
>
> We actually have two logical operations hiding under the name "MOVE".
> (a) One is a rename within a collection. (b) The other is a move (possibly
> also with a rename at the same time) to another collection.
>
> I don't think people would expect the same ordering behavior for (a) and
> (b), since they view them as different logical operations.

Well,

actually I *do* assume that MOVE behaves the same regardless the source
collection (and I assume so is Geoff).

To summarize: principles of "least surprise" or "regularity" do not seem to
help us here -- they can be used to argue for both positions. As this is
supposed to become a "proposed" standard only, we may want to delay this
decision in order to gather more implementation experience (as far as I know
currently there's only one single implementation). Therefore, my proposal is
to leave this specific point undefined. We'd then still need to decide
whether the spec should explicitly point out that the behaviour is
server-dependant.

Feedback appreciated.


Regards,

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 15:35:58 UTC