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

Re: Possible problem in collection definition

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:11:31 +0100
Message-ID: <43FBAC33.2010500@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Jason Crawford <nn683849@smallcue.com>, webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

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.

Nope. I don't think that would make sense. Servers will return 
consistent names if they can (and we tell them they SHOULD). Servers 
won't if they can't. A "MUST" won't change that.

> 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)

Why would that be harmful?
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 00:12:34 GMT

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