Fw: Possible problem in collection definition

Jason pointed out that my example was incorrect, since A could
contain any of the 16 possible permutations.  So instead: 

  An exception to this rule occurs if the server considers
  certain segments to be equivalent (i.e., the segments will always
  identify the same resource).  In this case, A MUST contain a mapping
  to B from at least one of the segments that are equivalent to "SEGMENT".
  For example, if the server performs "case-folding" on the URL
  segments, then in the preceding example, A must contain at least
  one mapping to B from "blah", "Blah", "bLah", or one of the other
  case-folding equivalents of "blah" (but does not have to contain
  more than one such mapping).

Jason also suggested that we require there to be exactly one mapping
to a given set of equivalents.  I'm inclined to leave that up to the
server, and only require that there be at least one.

Cheers,
Geoff



Geoffrey M Clemm/Lexington/IBM wrote on 02/18/2006 04:39:23 PM:

> OK, how about:
>  An exception to this rule occurs if the server considers
>  certain segments to be equivalent (i.e., the segments will always
>  identify the same resource).  In this case, A MUST contain a mapping
>  to B from at least one of the segments that are equivalent to 
"SEGMENT".
>  For example, if the server performs "case-folding" on the URL
>  segments, then in the preceding example, A must contain a mapping
>  from either "blah" or "blAh" to B, but does not have to contain
>  both mappings.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 02/18/2006 02:54:46 PM:
> 
> > 
> > On Saturday, 02/18/2006 at 08:27 MST, Geoffrey M 
> > Clemm/Lexington/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
> > > 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". 
> > 
> > That's good, but I think Jullian also included another example that 
> > wasn't case folding.  It was the case of what Windows does with 
> > filenames with no extention.  It accepts either      george   or 
> > george.   (note the trailing dot) as the same file.   I assume there
> > are other cases that we haven't thought of.  We probably need to 
> > make the wording a bit more generic, but we could use case-folding 
> > as an example. 
> > 
> > J.