W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: Possible problem in collection definition

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 11:07:00 -0800
Message-Id: <2650E9F8-63A9-46A9-A314-C3105C89CE6C@osafoundation.org>
Cc: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
I suggest we use normative language to be clear what the requirements  
are and use examples as illustrations.  Geoff's text nearly does  
this, but it's not entirely clear (perhaps it would be in a larger  
context) whether the requirements forbid this "feature" always except  
case-folding, or whether the requirements allow this feature always.


On Feb 19, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Jason Crawford wrote:

> On Sunday, 02/19/2006 at 09:29 PST, Lisa Dusseault  
> <nnlisa___at___osafoundation.org@smallcue.com> wrote:
> > That's nearly what I had in mind, but I wonder if case-folding is  
> the only
> > acceptable way for servers to have multiple URLs for the same  
> resources and
> > only advertise one of them.  What about a server that  
> automatically finds a
> > "foo.html" file when clients ask for "foo.htm"?
> I think Jullian also mentioned an additional situation where there  
> is aliasing.
> OTOH, Geoffrey only used case-folding as an example.  Would you
> suggest that he include addtional examples?  Or is one example enough?
> > >   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".
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2006 19:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:35 UTC