Re: Possible problem in collection definition

I think the following addition would solve the problem.  Following
the paragraph quoted below, add the paragraph:

  An exception to this rule occurs if the server performs "case-folding"
  on the URL segments, e.g. considers the segment "AB" to be equivalent
  to the segements "Ab", "aB", and "ab".  In this case, A MUST contain
  a mapping to B from one of the segments that are equivalent to 
"SEGMENT".

Cheers,
Geoff


w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 02/17/2006 01:29:23 AM:
> 
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > 
> >  From bug 227 
<http://ietf.webdav.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227>:
> > 
> >     For all WebDAV compliant resources A and B, identified by URLs "U"
> >     and "V" respectively, such that "V" is equal to "U/SEGMENT", A 
MUST
> >     be a collection that contains a mapping from "SEGMENT" to B. So, 
if
> >     resource B with URL "http://example.com/bar/blah" is WebDAV 
compliant
> >     and if resource A with URL "http://example.com/bar/" is WebDAV
> >     compliant, then resource A must be a collection and must contain a
> >     mapping from "blah" to B.
> > 
> > and an example from just after:
> > 
> >     An example for this case are servers that support multiple alias 
URLs
> >     for each WebDAV compliant resource.  For instance, a server may
> >     implement case-insensitive URLs, thus "/col/a" and "/col/A" 
identify
> >     the same resource, yet only either "a" or "A" are reported upon
> >     listing the members of "/col".
> > 
> > This example may be inconsistent with the requirement just stated.  We 

> > can argue that '/col/a' maps to a WebDAV compliant resource and "/col" 

> > maps to a WebDAV collection, thus "/col" MUST have a mapping from "a" 
to 
> > the child resource.  We can argue the same for "/col/A".   Following 
> > that logic could make URL-case-insensitive servers rather difficult 
...
> 
> Correct. Note however that this is also a problem with the original 
> definition.
> 
> > It may *not* be inconsistent if we claim that "/col/a" and "/col/A" 
are 
> > the same URL. It also may not be inconsistent if we say that resource 
B 
> > is identified by one of "/col/a" or "/col/A" but not the other, but 
that 
> > wouldn't be the meaning of "identified by" that I'd expect.
> 
> But they aren't the same URL. And even if they would, are "/col/a." and 
> "/col/a" the same URL? Or "/col/%20a"? All of these map to the same 
> resource on IIS.
> 
> > Not proposing what to do about this just yet.
> 
> We need to relax the language such that the server is allowed to 
> suppress alias URLs. Let's just note this problem right now and fix it 
> during WGLC.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
>