- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 17:37:55 -0400
- To: jdavis@coursenet.com
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
From: "Jim Davis" <jdavis@coursenet.com> Suppose you have two existing collections, C1, and C2, where C1 contains C2, and the name bound to C1 is A/, and the name bound to C2 is A/B/, and that collection C2 contains R.html. There is a third collection that contains a binding of "A" with C1. Let's call this collection C3. This also needs a mapping, so suppose the server maps "/" to C3. This means we have the following mappings: / is mapped to C3 /A/ is mapped to C1 /A/B/ is mapped to C2 /A/B/R.html is mapped to R In C3, "A" is bound to C1. In C1, "B" is bound to C2. In C2, "R.html" is bound to R. So we have 4 mappings and 3 bindings. The extra mapping (i.e. of "/") is one that the server does through some magic like a configuration file. Then we have the following mapping from names to resources URL resource A/ C1 A/B/ C2 A/B/R.html R Yup (plus the "/" mapping I introduced). Now suppose one binds the name X to C2 I assume this binding is in C3. A/ C1 A/B/ C2 A/B/R.html R X/ C2 Yup. These are some of the new *mappings*. Does this also create a binding for X/R.html to R? No, but it does create a *mapping* from /X/R.html to R. Which is why it is very important to distinguish a *binding* from a *mapping*. A single new binding (to a collection) creates a new mapping for *each* member of that collection. If you bind / to /foo, you get *lots* of new mappings (an infinite number, in fact), but only one new binding. Since mappings are games that a server plays, this is fine (unlike a new bindings, each of which requires a change of state to a collection). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 1999 17:38:02 UTC