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

Re: Possible problem in collection definition

From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:41:35 -0800
Message-Id: <9C89FC92-9DD9-4CA4-9F5F-84429689535D@apple.com>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

   Should we recommend that a PROPFIND always return the same  
(canonical) segment from a given list of equivalent segments?

   Clients may be confused if a random choice from "ab", "Ab", "aB",  
and "AB" for a given set of sequential PROPFIND requests, such as  
assume that things are changing when they may in fact not have  
changed at all.

	-wsv


On Feb 20, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>> 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
>
> Perfect.
>
> Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 23:42:06 GMT

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