- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 20:56:11 -0800 (PST)
- To: jamsden@us.ibm.com
- cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 jamsden@us.ibm.com wrote: > > HTTP URLs aren't case sensitive, RFC 2616, S3.2.3 states "When comparing two URIs to decide if they match or not, a client SHOULD use a case-sensitive octet-by-octet comparison of the entire URIs, with these exceptions: ..." In other words: they *are* case-sensitive. Apache certainly treats them that way. Try these two URLs: http://www.webdav.org/other/proxy.html http://www.webdav.org/other/Proxy.html You'll find the latter fails. Note that HTTP servers running on an MSFT platform typically treat URLs in a case-insensitive fashion (due to the filesystem being insensitive). > but some resources are. For example, Java > source managed by a WebDAV server must retain the case in the package and > class names or the code won't compile. mod_dav foldes all resource names to > lower case, so .java files on the server won't compile. WHAT?!! mod_dav does NOT do any case-folding. Euh... what made you think it does? > It seems that WebDAV could, like HTTP, be case insensitive while at the > same time require that the server retain the case of resource URLs. That > is, the URL segments in the bindings would retain the case in the target > when it was entered, but access to those resources would be case > insensitive. If this is not the case, WebDAV can't be used to store Java. > That would be a real bummer! > > Would the proposal above be acceptable, and in the spirit of HTTP? No and no. (IMO) I certainly do not want to take the performance hit to start doing case-insensitive work in mod_dav and Apache. I am in great favor of continuing to operate in a case-sensitive fashion, and I believe the relevant RFCs encourage that, too. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2000 23:53:28 UTC