Re: Fw: Possible problem in collection definition

On Sunday, 02/19/2006 at 09:55 MST, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>   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 at least 
>   one mapping to B from "blah", "Blah", "bLah", or one of the other 
>   case-folding equivalents of "blah" (but does not have to contain
>   more than one such mapping). 
> 
> Jason also suggested that we require there to be exactly one mapping 
> to a given set of equivalents.  I'm inclined to leave that up to the 
> server, and only require that there be at least one. 

Let me first explain what I meant... 

I'm suggesting that all equivalent segments refer to the same (single) 
mapping.  When you act on any of those segments, you're acting on the same 
mapping.  We should also say that PROPFIND should list all bindings of the 
collection at least once and if a binding is listed more than once, the 
server is allowed to list a different equivalent segment for each. 

There is a second alternative that I'd consider consistent.    We can say 
that every equivalent segment also has a mapping to the same resource. 
(IOW's the number of equivalent segments is equal to the number of 
"mappings".)  We'd say if you change one mapping, the server has to change 
the mapping at all equiv segments.  As for the  PROPFIND statement above, 
we'd have to invent some term (for a set of equivalent segments and 
mappings)  to express the first part of that in this context.  (That's why 
I prefer the previous paragraph's definition.) 

Those two alternatives seem to be the only options to me.  Saying that the 
number of "mappings" can be somewhere between 1 and the number 
of equivalent segments does not seem consistent ot me.  If we say that, we 
have to then distinguish between (listed) mappings... and 
[some-new-"mapping"-like-term] for the unlisted and clarify acts on each 
and resulting behaviors of each.  This is over and above the additional 
term we'd need to express the second approach.  

J.