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

Re: Fw: Possible problem in collection definition

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:46:17 -0700
To: Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>
Cc: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCC16BB5A.5A4E755C-ON8725711B.0000896B-8725711B.005124A6@us.ibm.com>
OK, how about the following: (version 3, I believe :-)

  Although commonly a mapping consists of a single segment and a resource,
  in general, a mapping consists of a set of segments and a resource.
  This allows a server to treat a set of segments as equivalent
  (i.e. either all of the segments are mapped to the same resource,
  or none of the segments are mapped to a resource).
  For example, a server that performs case-folding on segments
  will treat the segments "ab", "Ab", "aB", and "AB" as equivalent,
  A client can then use any of these segments to identify the resource.
  Note that a PROPFIND result will select one of these equivalent
  segments to identify the mapping, so there will be one PROPFIND 
  response element per mapping, not one per segment in the mapping.

Cheers,
Geoff


Jason wrote on 02/19/2006 01:01:37 PM:
> 
> 
> 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. 
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 14:46:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:13 GMT