- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: 2003年4月23日 19:35:48 +0200
- To: "B. Shadgar" <shadgar@cs.bris.ac.uk>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "w3c-dist-auth" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEOGHBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of B. Shadgar > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 7:02 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: w3c-dist-auth > Subject: Re: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections > > > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > some more thoughts: > > > > Properties are attached to resources. Ordering is a property of the > > collection that contains internal member names identifying > resources. For > > instance, you might have several collections containing > bindings to the same > > set of resources, but with different orderings. There's no way > to simulate > > this with DASL (which -- by the way -- is not nearly done...) > and returning > > ordered results. > > > > Julian > > > > Ok, what if we define a live property called resource-name which is > representing the name of a resource? We can't, because the name isn't a property of the resource. It's a property of the binding *to* the resource (of which there can be many), and which belongs to the state of the parent collection. BTW: how would that help? Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 13:35:56 UTC