6 Apr 2003 22:08
More on ordered collections
Lisa Dusseault <lisa <at> xythos.com>
2003-04-06 20:08:34 GMT
2003-04-06 20:08:34 GMT
Is the position of a newly-defined resource in an ordered collection treated the same way by all servers? It would be nice to be specific about how new resources are added to an ordered collection. I assume that sub-collections are orderable as well? That is, if I have an ordered collection containing several sub-collections, I assume I can define an ordering that includes all sub-collections along with all other children. I believe this is already clear through the term "member" even though none of the examples show a sub-collection. Other questions - If I MOVE a resource within the same collection, must the server preserve its ordering position wrt other resources? - If I COPY a resource within the same collection, where is the new resource placed in the ordering -- next to the old resource (closely preserving its ordering semantics), or at the end, or arbitrary? - If I MOVE or COPY a resource into a collection, overwriting a resource that has an ordering position, is that ordering position (of the destination) preserved? - If I DELETE a resource, must the server preserve the ordering other than that deleted resource? Section 4 could be more explicit that if resource C is after B is after A, then the deletion of B means that C must be after A rather than destroying the ordering relationship. This is worth making explicit because server implementors must either maintain their orderings in a format that is irrelevant to what resources exist (absolute), or relative orderings must be fixed up when a resource is deleted. Note that the answers to the MOVE/COPY questions are particularly(Continue reading)
The default of "end-of-ordering" in the absence of the Position header is
specified for the case where a new collection member is *added*. A MOVE can
be seen both as
1) removing a binding and adding a new binding or
2) renaming a binding.
RSS Feed