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: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:30:16 -0800
Message-Id: <4E37033B-26DD-4157-BCB3-0A1CFCD0D168@apple.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

On Feb 21, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> On Feb 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
>>>   Should we recommend that a PROPFIND always return the same  
>>> (canonical) segment from a given list of equivalent segments?
>>
>> If a server doesn't do that, UIs will behave in a *very*  
>> surprising when a collection view is refreshed.
>>
>> Thus, I'd say, yes they SHOULD.
>
> MUST, even.
>
> Are such segment mappings considered harmful enough to recommend  
> that servers SHOULD NOT have equivalence sets of segments?  (But  
> that if they do, here's how they MUST do it, of course)

   These are fairly common today, and people seem to be getting by  
just fine, so I'd say no, they aren't sufficiently harmful.

	-wsv
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 22:30:40 GMT

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