Re: Possible problem in collection definition

   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