Possible problem in collection definition

 From bug 227 <http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi? 
id=227>:

     For all WebDAV compliant resources A and B, identified by URLs "U"
     and "V" respectively, such that "V" is equal to "U/SEGMENT", A MUST
     be a collection that contains a mapping from "SEGMENT" to B. So, if
     resource B with URL "http://example.com/bar/blah" is WebDAV  
compliant
     and if resource A with URL "http://example.com/bar/" is WebDAV
     compliant, then resource A must be a collection and must contain a
     mapping from "blah" to B.

and an example from just after:

     An example for this case are servers that support multiple alias  
URLs
     for each WebDAV compliant resource.  For instance, a server may
     implement case-insensitive URLs, thus "/col/a" and "/col/A"  
identify
     the same resource, yet only either "a" or "A" are reported upon
     listing the members of "/col".

This example may be inconsistent with the requirement just stated.   
We can argue that '/col/a' maps to a WebDAV compliant resource and "/ 
col" maps to a WebDAV collection, thus "/col" MUST have a mapping  
from "a" to the child resource.  We can argue the same for "/col/ 
A".   Following that logic could make URL-case-insensitive servers  
rather difficult ...

It may *not* be inconsistent if we claim that "/col/a" and "/col/A"  
are the same URL. It also may not be inconsistent if we say that  
resource B is identified by one of "/col/a" or "/col/A" but not the  
other, but that wouldn't be the meaning of "identified by" that I'd  
expect.
	
Not proposing what to do about this just yet.

Lisa