Re: Possible problem in collection definition

OK, how about:
 An exception to this rule occurs if the server considers
 certain segments to be equivalent (i.e., the segments will always
 identify the same resource).  In this case, A MUST contain a mapping
 to B from at least one of the segments that are equivalent to "SEGMENT".
 For example, if the server performs "case-folding" on the URL
 segments, then in the preceding example, A must contain a mapping
 from either "blah" or "blAh" to B, but does not have to contain
 both mappings.

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 02/18/2006 02:54:46 PM:

> 
> On Saturday, 02/18/2006 at 08:27 MST, Geoffrey M 
> Clemm/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
> > I think the following addition would solve the problem.  Following 
> > the paragraph quoted below, add the paragraph: 
> > 
> >   An exception to this rule occurs if the server performs 
"case-folding" 
> >   on the URL segments, e.g. considers the segment "AB" to be 
equivalent 
> >   to the segements "Ab", "aB", and "ab".  In this case, A MUST contain 

> >   a mapping to B from one of the segments that are equivalent to 
"SEGMENT". 
> 
> That's good, but I think Jullian also included another example that 
> wasn't case folding.  It was the case of what Windows does with 
> filenames with no extention.  It accepts either      george   or 
> george.   (note the trailing dot) as the same file.   I assume there
> are other cases that we haven't thought of.  We probably need to 
> make the wording a bit more generic, but we could use case-folding 
> as an example. 
> 
> J.