RE: Namespace consistency

Yaron and Jim seem to disagree on the nature of the requirement,
so it sounds like this needs to get worked out.


> Actually no, http://foo/bar does NOT have to be a collection just because
> http://foo/bar/blah is a collection. The requirement reads as:
> 
> IF http://foo/bar is DAV compliant and
> IF http://foo/bar/blah/ exists and is DAV compliant
> THEN http://foo/bar must be a collection.

Must the intermediaries also be DAV compliant? Well, for one level
it doesn't matter, but suppose:


1)  http://foo/bar is DAV compliant
2)  http://foo/bar/a/b/c/blah/ exists and is DAV compliant
3)  then must http://foo/bar/a/b be a (DAV-compliant) collection?

This would leave out the possibility that http://foo/bar/a might
be some kind of mapping? Or is it that "exists" needs elaboration
to except that case where it's a redirection?